Suppr超能文献

医疗设备的卫生技术评估:有何不同?三个欧洲项目概述。

Health technology assessment of medical devices: What is different? An overview of three European projects.

作者信息

Schnell-Inderst Petra, Mayer Julia, Lauterberg Jörg, Hunger Theresa, Arvandi Marjan, Conrads-Frank Annette, Nachtnebel Anna, Wild Claudia, Siebert Uwe

机构信息

Department of Public Health and Technology Assessment, UMIT - University for Health Sciences, Medical Informatics and Technology, Hall i. T., Austria.

Ludwig Boltzmann Institut für Health Technology Assessment, Vienna, Austria.

出版信息

Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 2015;109(4-5):309-18. doi: 10.1016/j.zefq.2015.06.011. Epub 2015 Jul 26.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

With the growing use and importance of health technology assessment (HTA) in decision making during recent years, health technology assessors, decision makers and stakeholders are confronted with methodological challenges due to specific characteristics of health technologies (e. g., pharmaceuticals, diagnostic tests, screening programs), their developmental environment, and their regulation process. Being aware of the necessity to use HTA as a policy instrument for sustainable health care systems in a regulatory environment of decentralized Conformité Européenne (CE) marking, the European Union (EU) is increasingly supporting the development of methods for the assessment of medical devices (MD) on different levels: within the scope of European research projects and within joint assessment activities of the member states of the European network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA).

OBJECTIVE

First, this article describes three projects: MedtecHTA-Methods for Health Technology Assessment of Medical Devices, a European Perspective Work Package 3 (WP3), Comparative Effectiveness of Medical Devices led by the University for Health Sciences, Medical Informatics and Technology (UMIT). Second, we discuss the experiences of the Ludwig Boltzmann Institute Health Technology Assessment (LBI HTA) with the joint production of rapid assessments of medical devices by several European HTA agencies within EUnetHTA. Third, a brief outline is given of the framework of joint methodological guideline elaboration by the EUnetHTA partner organizations because a guideline for therapeutic MD is also being developed here.

METHODS

We will describe aims, methods and some preliminary results of MedtecHTA and EUnetHTA Joint Action 2 Work Package 5 Strand B (WP5B) applying the HTA Core Model for Rapid Assessment for national adaptation and reporting, and give an overview of the development process of methodological guidelines within WP 7 of EUnetHTA Joint Action 2.

RESULTS

Based on a literature review in MedtecHTA WP3 incremental development, context dependency and the physical mode of action of MD were identified as those characteristics making therapeutic MD different from drugs with regard to evaluation methods. In addition, regulation does not stipulate clinical trials. These characteristics were also identified as challenges for the production of joint assessments of MD within the HTA network EUnetHTA. Furthermore, adequate timing of assessment production, the variety of involved manufacturers, the non-transparent regulation process of MD in Europe and the often poor evidence base pose a challenge to EUnetHTA assessors. As a consequence, processes and methods for the joint production of rapid assessments must be continuously adapted and improved.

DISCUSSION

Research on HTA methods for the assessment of MD tries to provide tools to deal with rapidly developing devices during evidence generation, dependence of clinical effectiveness of MD on user experience and context factors. There are also tools to integrate evidence from different sources adjusting for different levels of validity, but these methods are not established and need high epidemiological and statistical expertise. A framework for deciding whether additional evidence is needed to reduce uncertainty regarding safety, clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness will be adapted to MD. The whole process of evidence generation before and after market access has to be considered to provide an environment for conclusive HTA recommendations informing health care decision making. In Joint Action 2, EUnetHTA develops transparent processes for the early dialogue with stakeholders and fosters dissemination of appropriate HTA methods. In the case of MD, there are special accumulated needs for such efforts.

摘要

背景

近年来,随着卫生技术评估(HTA)在决策制定中的应用日益广泛且重要,卫生技术评估人员、决策者和利益相关者因卫生技术(如药品、诊断测试、筛查项目)的特定特征、其发展环境及其监管过程而面临方法学挑战。意识到在分散的欧洲合格评定(CE)标志监管环境下将HTA用作可持续医疗保健系统的政策工具的必要性,欧盟(EU)越来越多地支持在不同层面上开展医疗器械(MD)评估方法的开发:在欧洲研究项目范围内以及在欧洲卫生技术评估网络(EUnetHTA)成员国的联合评估活动中。

目的

首先,本文介绍三个项目:医疗器械卫生技术评估方法(MedtecHTA)——欧洲视角工作包3(WP3)、由健康科学、医学信息与技术大学(UMIT)牵头的医疗器械的比较有效性。其次,我们讨论路德维希·玻尔兹曼卫生技术评估研究所(LBI HTA)在EUnetHTA内由多个欧洲HTA机构联合开展医疗器械快速评估方面的经验。第三,简要概述EUnetHTA合作伙伴组织联合制定方法指南的框架,因为在此也正在制定治疗性MD的指南。

方法

我们将描述MedtecHTA和EUnetHTA联合行动2工作包5 B组(WP5B)的目标、方法和一些初步结果,该项目应用HTA快速评估核心模型进行国家层面的调整和报告,并概述EUnetHTA联合行动2工作包7内方法指南的制定过程。

结果

基于MedtecHTA WP3中的文献综述,渐进式发展、情境依赖性以及MD的物理作用方式被确定为在评估方法方面使治疗性MD不同于药物的特征。此外,法规未规定进行临床试验。这些特征也被确定为在HTA网络EUnetHTA内开展MD联合评估的挑战。此外,评估产出的适当时间安排、涉及制造商的多样性、欧洲MD不透明的监管过程以及通常薄弱的证据基础给EUnetHTA评估人员带来了挑战。因此,快速评估联合产出的流程和方法必须不断调整和改进。

讨论

关于MD评估的HTA方法研究试图提供工具,以应对证据生成过程中快速发展的器械、MD临床有效性对用户体验和情境因素的依赖性。也有工具可整合来自不同来源的证据,并针对不同的有效性水平进行调整,但这些方法尚未确立,需要较高的流行病学和统计学专业知识。一个用于决定是否需要额外证据以减少关于安全性、临床有效性和成本效益的不确定性的框架将适用于MD。必须考虑市场准入前后证据生成的整个过程,以提供一个环境,以便得出确凿的HTA建议,为医疗保健决策提供信息。在联合行动2中,EUnetHTA制定与利益相关者进行早期对话的透明流程,并促进适当HTA方法的传播。就MD而言,此类努力有特殊的累积需求。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验