Cargando…

HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT OF MEDICAL DEVICES: A SURVEY OF NON-EUROPEAN UNION AGENCIES

Objectives: The aim of this study was to review and compare current health technology assessment (HTA) activities for medical devices across non-European Union HTA agencies. Methods: HTA activities for medical devices were evaluated from three perspectives: organizational structure, processes, and m...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ciani, Oriana, Wilcher, Britni, Blankart, Carl Rudolf, Hatz, Maximilian, Rupel, Valentina Prevolnik, Erker, Renata Slabe, Varabyova, Yauheniya, Taylor, Rod S.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Cambridge University Press 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4535322/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26044729
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0266462315000185
_version_ 1782385590834036736
author Ciani, Oriana
Wilcher, Britni
Blankart, Carl Rudolf
Hatz, Maximilian
Rupel, Valentina Prevolnik
Erker, Renata Slabe
Varabyova, Yauheniya
Taylor, Rod S.
author_facet Ciani, Oriana
Wilcher, Britni
Blankart, Carl Rudolf
Hatz, Maximilian
Rupel, Valentina Prevolnik
Erker, Renata Slabe
Varabyova, Yauheniya
Taylor, Rod S.
author_sort Ciani, Oriana
collection PubMed
description Objectives: The aim of this study was to review and compare current health technology assessment (HTA) activities for medical devices across non-European Union HTA agencies. Methods: HTA activities for medical devices were evaluated from three perspectives: organizational structure, processes, and methods. Agencies were primarily selected upon membership of existing HTA networks. The data collection was performed in two stages: stage 1–agency Web-site assessment using a standardized questionnaire, followed by review and validation of the collected data by a representative of the agency; and stage 2–semi-structured telephone interviews with key informants of a sub-sample of agencies. Results: In total, thirty-six HTA agencies across twenty non-EU countries assessing medical devices were included. Twenty-seven of thirty-six (75 percent) agencies were judged at stage 1 to have adopted HTA-specific approaches for medical devices (MD-specific agencies) that were largely organizational or procedural. There appeared to be few differences in the organization, process and methods between MD-specific and non–MD-specific agencies. Although the majority (69 percent) of both categories of agency had specific methods guidance or policy for evidence submission, only one MD-specific agency had developed methodological guidelines specific to medical devices. In stage 2, many MD-specific agencies cited insufficient resources (budget, skilled employees), lack of coordination (between regulator and reimbursement bodies), and the inability to generalize findings from evidence synthesis to be key challenges in the HTA of medical devices. Conclusions: The lack of evidence for differentiation in scientific methods for HTA of devices raises the question of whether HTA needs to develop new methods for medical devices but rather adapt existing methodological approaches. In contrast, organizational and/or procedural adaptation of existing HTA agency frameworks to accommodate medical devices appear relatively commonplace.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4535322
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher Cambridge University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-45353222015-08-18 HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT OF MEDICAL DEVICES: A SURVEY OF NON-EUROPEAN UNION AGENCIES Ciani, Oriana Wilcher, Britni Blankart, Carl Rudolf Hatz, Maximilian Rupel, Valentina Prevolnik Erker, Renata Slabe Varabyova, Yauheniya Taylor, Rod S. Int J Technol Assess Health Care Methods Objectives: The aim of this study was to review and compare current health technology assessment (HTA) activities for medical devices across non-European Union HTA agencies. Methods: HTA activities for medical devices were evaluated from three perspectives: organizational structure, processes, and methods. Agencies were primarily selected upon membership of existing HTA networks. The data collection was performed in two stages: stage 1–agency Web-site assessment using a standardized questionnaire, followed by review and validation of the collected data by a representative of the agency; and stage 2–semi-structured telephone interviews with key informants of a sub-sample of agencies. Results: In total, thirty-six HTA agencies across twenty non-EU countries assessing medical devices were included. Twenty-seven of thirty-six (75 percent) agencies were judged at stage 1 to have adopted HTA-specific approaches for medical devices (MD-specific agencies) that were largely organizational or procedural. There appeared to be few differences in the organization, process and methods between MD-specific and non–MD-specific agencies. Although the majority (69 percent) of both categories of agency had specific methods guidance or policy for evidence submission, only one MD-specific agency had developed methodological guidelines specific to medical devices. In stage 2, many MD-specific agencies cited insufficient resources (budget, skilled employees), lack of coordination (between regulator and reimbursement bodies), and the inability to generalize findings from evidence synthesis to be key challenges in the HTA of medical devices. Conclusions: The lack of evidence for differentiation in scientific methods for HTA of devices raises the question of whether HTA needs to develop new methods for medical devices but rather adapt existing methodological approaches. In contrast, organizational and/or procedural adaptation of existing HTA agency frameworks to accommodate medical devices appear relatively commonplace. Cambridge University Press 2015 /pmc/articles/PMC4535322/ /pubmed/26044729 http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0266462315000185 Text en © Cambridge University Press 2015 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Methods
Ciani, Oriana
Wilcher, Britni
Blankart, Carl Rudolf
Hatz, Maximilian
Rupel, Valentina Prevolnik
Erker, Renata Slabe
Varabyova, Yauheniya
Taylor, Rod S.
HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT OF MEDICAL DEVICES: A SURVEY OF NON-EUROPEAN UNION AGENCIES
title HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT OF MEDICAL DEVICES: A SURVEY OF NON-EUROPEAN UNION AGENCIES
title_full HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT OF MEDICAL DEVICES: A SURVEY OF NON-EUROPEAN UNION AGENCIES
title_fullStr HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT OF MEDICAL DEVICES: A SURVEY OF NON-EUROPEAN UNION AGENCIES
title_full_unstemmed HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT OF MEDICAL DEVICES: A SURVEY OF NON-EUROPEAN UNION AGENCIES
title_short HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT OF MEDICAL DEVICES: A SURVEY OF NON-EUROPEAN UNION AGENCIES
title_sort health technology assessment of medical devices: a survey of non-european union agencies
topic Methods
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4535322/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26044729
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0266462315000185
work_keys_str_mv AT cianioriana healthtechnologyassessmentofmedicaldevicesasurveyofnoneuropeanunionagencies
AT wilcherbritni healthtechnologyassessmentofmedicaldevicesasurveyofnoneuropeanunionagencies
AT blankartcarlrudolf healthtechnologyassessmentofmedicaldevicesasurveyofnoneuropeanunionagencies
AT hatzmaximilian healthtechnologyassessmentofmedicaldevicesasurveyofnoneuropeanunionagencies
AT rupelvalentinaprevolnik healthtechnologyassessmentofmedicaldevicesasurveyofnoneuropeanunionagencies
AT erkerrenataslabe healthtechnologyassessmentofmedicaldevicesasurveyofnoneuropeanunionagencies
AT varabyovayauheniya healthtechnologyassessmentofmedicaldevicesasurveyofnoneuropeanunionagencies
AT taylorrods healthtechnologyassessmentofmedicaldevicesasurveyofnoneuropeanunionagencies