Search

Objectives: As current health technology assessment (HTA) frameworks do not provide specific guidance on the assessment of medical artificial intelligence (AI), this study aimed to propose a conceptual framework for a broad HTA of medical AI. Methods: A systematic literature review and a targeted search of policy documents was conducted to distill the relevant medical AI assessment elements. Three exemplary cases were selected to illustrate various elements: (1) An application supporting radiologists in stroke-care (2) A natural language processing application for clinical data abstraction (3) An ICU-discharge decision-making application. Results: A total of 31 policy documents and 9 academic publications were selected, from which a list of 29 issues was distilled. The issues were grouped by four focus areas: (1) Technology & Performance, (2) Human & Organizational, (3) Legal & Ethical and (4) Transparency & Usability. Each assessment element was extensively discussed in the test, and the elements clinical effectiveness, clinical workflow, workforce, interoperability, fairness and explainability were further highlighted through the exemplary cases. Conclusion: The current methodology of HTA requires extension to make it suitable for a broad evaluation of medical AI technologies. The 29-item assessment list that we propose needs a tailored approach for distinct types of medical AI, since the conceptualisation of the issues differs across applications.

Objective: To provide a comprehensive framework for value assessment of artificial intelligence (AI) in radiology. Methods: This paper presents the RADAR framework, which has been adapted from Fryback and Thornbury’s imaging efficacy framework to facilitate the valuation of radiology AI from conception to local implementation. Local efficacy has been newly introduced to underscore the importance of appraising an AI technology within its local environment. Furthermore, the RADAR framework is illustrated through a myriad of study designs that help assess value. Results: RADAR presents a seven-level hierarchy, providing radiologists, researchers, and policymakers with a structured approach to the comprehensive assessment of value in radiology AI. RADAR is designed to be dynamic and meet the different valuation needs throughout the AI’s lifecycle. Initial phases like technical and diagnostic efficacy (RADAR-1 and RADAR-2) are assessed pre-clinical deployment via in silico clinical trials and cross-sectional studies. Subsequent stages, spanning from diagnostic thinking to patient outcome efficacy (RADAR-3 to RADAR-5), require clinical integration and are explored via randomized controlled trials and cohort studies. Cost-effectiveness efficacy (RADAR-6) takes a societal perspective on financial feasibility, addressed via health-economic evaluations. The final level, RADAR-7, determines how prior valuations translate locally, evaluated through budget impact analysis, multi-criteria decision analyses, and prospective monitoring.Conclusion: The RADAR framework offers a comprehensive framework for valuing radiology AI. Its layered, hierarchical structure, combined with a focus on local relevance, aligns RADAR seamlessly with the principles of value-based radiology. Critical relevance statement: The RADAR framework advances artificial intelligence in radiology by delineating a

Immunotherapy offers a distinctive mechanism of action compared to traditional treatments, arising from additional value dimensions that may not be captured in standard health technology assessments. Cancer patients may have the expectation that immunotherapy provides durable, long-term survival gains. Moreover, some patients may be willing to take a 'risk' to undergo immunotherapy to achieve better survival outcomes. We reviewed quantitative methods that explored patients' risk preferences in their non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treatment choices, in PubMed (MEDLINE), from January 1, 2015, until July 1, 2022. The consideration of a value dimension ('hope') based on patients' risk-seeking preferences is specifically addressed for the valuation of immune checkpoint inhibitors in NSCLC. We reported that the quantitative methods that aim to measure patients' risk preferences or 'hope' empirically are emerging. Value assessments should not only comprise survival improvements for the mean or median patient but also consider methods that reflect durable, long-term overall survival gains for risk-seeking patients. However, the published evidence for incorporating 'hope' based on patients' stated preferences for uncertain treatment profiles is not strong, and future research could strengthen this evidence base. We encourage further research on the development and validation of quantification methods to incorporate 'hope' and risk preferences of patients treated with immunotherapy for NSCLC and beyond.

Feline FJA ter Bruggen,1 W Ken Redekop,2 Dirk L Stronks,1 Frank JPM Huygen1 1Department of Anesthesiology, Center for Pain Medicine, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; 2Department of Health Technology Assessment, Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the NetherlandsCorrespondence: Feline FJA ter Bruggen Tel +31 6 40962334Email ftbruggen@gmail.com; f.terbruggen@erasmusmc.nlObjective: The success of neurostimulation depends partly on the amount of coverage of the neurostimulation-induced paresthesia of the painful area. This is often achieved by asking feedback from patients intraoperatively. If sedation analgesia is used, it is important that the patient is comfortable during sedation and easily arousable. If the patient is not well sedated or experiences residual effects of the sedation during testing, this can directly influence the ideal placement of the leads and indirectly the long-term effect of the treatment. It is our hypothesis that the quality of the sedation is directly coupled to the adequacy of lead placement and in this way in the result of the treatment. Dexmedetomidine is known for its easy production of arousable sedation. The aim of the present study was to compare the long-term effect of using dexmedetomidine versus propofol during the implantation of a neurostimulator.Materials and Methods: This is a post-trial follow-up analysis of the DexMedPro cohort. The primary outcome was global perceived effect (GPE). The secondary outcomes were the course of pain intensity, the emotional and physical functioning at the time of follow-up, and the course of neurostimulation treatment. In this study, we used the patient satisfaction with sedation as a measure for sedation quality.Results: Regarding the GPE, no statistically significant differences were found between the experimental groups in either subscale (ie, recovery (p=0.82) and satisfaction with the neurostimulation treatment at follow-up (p=0.0

Objective: The success of neurostimulation depends partly on the amount of coverage of the neurostimulation-induced paresthesia of the painful area. This is often achieved by asking feedback from patients intraoperatively. If sedation analgesia is used, it is important that the patient is comfortable during sedation and easily arousable. If the patient is not well sedated or experiences residual effects of the sedation during testing, this can directly influence the ideal placement of the leads and indirectly the long-term effect of the treatment. It is our hypothesis that the quality of the sedation is directly coupled to the adequacy of lead placement and in this way in the result of the treatment. Dexmedetomidine is known for its easy production of arousable sedation. The aim of the present study was to compare the long-term effect of using dexmedetomidine versus propofol during the implantation of a neurostimulator. Materials and Methods: This is a post-trial follow-up analysis of the DexMedPro cohort. The primary outcome was global perceived effect (GPE). The secondary outcomes were the course of pain intensity, the emotional and physical functioning at the time of follow-up, and the course of neurostimulation treatment. In this study, we used the patient satisfaction with sedation as a measure for sedation quality. Results: Regarding the GPE, no statistically significant differences were found between the experimental groups in either subscale (ie, recovery (p=0.82) and satisfaction with the neurostimulation treatment at follow-up (p=0.06)). The same was found regarding the secondary parameters. A correlation was found between patient satisfaction with sedation during the lead implantation (side effects and procedural recall) and satisfaction at follow-up. Conclusion: Regarding the long-term efficacy of neurostimulation treatment, no statistically significant differences were found between the dexmedetomidine and the propofol group. We observed a trend towa

The development of evidence to demonstrate 'value for money' is regarded as an important step in facilitating the search for the optimal allocation of limited resources and has become an essential component in healthcare decision making. Real-world evidence collected from de-identified individuals throughout the continuum of healthcare represents the most valuable source in technology evaluation. However, in the European Union, the value assessment based on real-world data has become challenging as individuals have recently been given the right to have their personal data erased in the case of consent withdrawal or when the data are regarded as being no longer necessary. This act may limit the usefulness of data in the future as it may introduce information bias. Among healthcare stakeholders, this has become an important topic of discussion because it relates to the importance of data on one side and to the need for personal data protection on the other side, especially when it comes to "personal data related to the physical or mental health of a natural person, including the provision of health care services, which reveals information about his or her health status". At the forefront of these discussions are data protection issues as well as the population's trust in digital services. It seems that the new era has begun, where citizens and patients will have the ability to manage their personal or self-generated data. The European Commission has laid the groundwork for this paradigm shift that will steadily emerge in the coming years. To prepare for this change, we believe attention should be given to data security and other rules of data privacy. It has become increasingly important to ensure that individuals are properly introduced into complex environments with multiple sources of Big Data for clinical and behavioral purposes to provide an optimal balance between societal and individual benefits. In this article, a number of issues are considered and discussed

Introduction: Clinical guidelines have recommended a 1-year trastuzumab regimen as standard care for early human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive breast cancer; however, this recommendation can have a dramatic impact on total drug expenditures in middle-income countries (MICs). We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis from the Iranian healthcare perspective to find an optimum duration of trastuzumab use in Iran. Method: We compared four treatment strategies comprising chemotherapy and varying durations of trastuzumab use (no trastuzumab, 6, 9 months, and 1 year), and a Markov model and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were used to estimate the costs and effects of the strategies. We then examined the cost effectiveness of the strategies at different willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds and ages at onset of treatment. Results: Incremental costs (versus no trastuzumab) were €8826 (6 months), €13,808 (9 months) and €18,588 (12 months), while incremental quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were 0.65 (6 months), 0.87 (9 months) and 1.14 (12 months). At a threshold of 3 × gross domestic product (GDP)/capita (€21,000/QALY) and for patients younger than 59 years, the 6-month protocol was most likely to be cost effective (probability of 42%). At a threshold of 4 × GDP/capita (€28,000/QALY), the 6-month and 1-year regimens were essentially equal in cost effectiveness (37 and 35%, respectively). At this WTP threshold, the 6-month and 1-year regimens were optimal strategies only for patients up to 66 and 44 years of age, respectively. Conclusion: In contrast to clinical guidelines, 6 months of trastuzumab may be the most cost-effective option for Iran. The lower absolute WTP threshold and lower life expectancy compared with high-income countries are two crucial parameters in the cost effectiveness of interventions in MICs. It is therefore necessary to strike a balance between maximum population health and maintaining affordability in these countries.

Background: Pompe disease is a rare, progressive, metabolic disease, and the first treatable inheritable muscle disorder. Enzyme replacement therapy (ERT) with alglucosidase alfa is disease specific and the only medicinal product authorized for the treatment of Pompe disease. Costs of ERT are very high as for most orphan drugs. This study investigates the cost-effectiveness of ERT compared to supportive treatment in adult patients with Pompe disease. Methods: Survival probabilities were estimated from an international observational dataset (n = 283) using a time-dependent Cox model. Quality of life was estimated on a Dutch observational dataset using a previously developed conceptual model which links clinical factors to quality of life. Costs included costs of ERT, costs of drug administration and other healthcare costs. Cost-effectiveness was estimated using a patient-level simulation model (n = 90), synthesising the information from underlying models for survival, quality of life and costs. The cost-effectiveness model estimated the (difference in) lifetime effects and costs for both treatments. Two scenarios were modelled: (1) a worse case scenario with no extrapolation of the survival gain due to ERT beyond the observed period (i.e. from 10 years onwards); and (2) a best case scenario with lifetime extrapolation of the survival gain due to ERT. Effects were expressed in (quality adjusted) life years (QALYs). Costs were discounted at 4.0% and effects at 1.5%. Results: Substantial increases in survival were estimated-discounted incremental life years of ERT ranged from 1.9 years to 5.4 years in the scenarios without and with extrapolation of survival gains beyond the observed period. Quality of life was also significantly better for patients receiving ERT. Incremental costs were considerable and primarily consisted of the costs of ERT. Incremental costs per QALY were €3.2 million for scenario 1 and €1.8 million for scenario 2. Conclusions: The availability of