Literature DB >> 28139085

Improving the Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Medical Devices.

Rosanna Tarricone1,2, Giuditta Callea2, Marko Ogorevc3, Valentina Prevolnik Rupel3.   

Abstract

Medical devices (MDs) have distinctive features, such as incremental innovation, dynamic pricing, the learning curve and organisational impact, that need to be considered when they are evaluated. This paper investigates how MDs have been assessed in practice, in order to identify methodological gaps that need to be addressed to improve the decision-making process for their adoption. We used the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist supplemented by some additional categories to assess the quality of reporting and consideration of the distinctive features of MDs. Two case studies were considered: transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) representing an emerging technology and implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) representing a mature technology. Economic evaluation studies published as journal articles or within Health Technology Assessment reports were identified through a systematic literature review. A total of 19 studies on TAVI and 41 studies on ICDs were analysed. Learning curve was considered in only 16% of studies on TAVI. Incremental innovation was more frequently mentioned in the studies of ICDs, but its impact was considered in only 34% of the cases. Dynamic pricing was the most recognised feature but was empirically tested in less than half of studies of TAVI and only 32% of studies on ICDs. Finally, organisational impact was considered in only one study of ICDs and in almost all studies on TAVI, but none of them estimated its impact. By their very nature, most of the distinctive features of MDs cannot be fully assessed at market entry. However, their potential impact could be modelled, based on the experience with previous MDs, in order to make a preliminary recommendation. Then, well-designed post-market studies could help in reducing uncertainties and make policymakers more confident to achieve conclusive recommendations.
© 2017 The Authors. Health Economics published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. © 2017 The Authors. Health Economics published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Keywords:  MedtecHTA; economic evaluation analysis; health technology assessment; medical devices

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28139085     DOI: 10.1002/hec.3471

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Health Econ        ISSN: 1057-9230            Impact factor:   3.046


  10 in total

1.  Critical Review of European Health-Economic Guidelines for the Health Technology Assessment of Medical Devices.

Authors:  Maximilian Blüher; Sita J Saunders; Virginie Mittard; Rafael Torrejon Torres; Jason A Davis; Rhodri Saunders
Journal:  Front Med (Lausanne)       Date:  2019-11-29

2.  A national economic and clinical model for ischemic stroke care development in Saudi Arabia: A call for change.

Authors:  Fahmi Al-Senani; Mohammed Al-Johani; Mohammad Salawati; Souda ElSheikh; Maha AlQahtani; Jamal Muthana; Saeed AlZahrani; Judith Shore; Matthew Taylor; Valeska S Ravest; Simon Eggington; Matthieu Cuche; Heather Davies; Kyriakos Lobotesis; Jeffrey L Saver
Journal:  Int J Stroke       Date:  2019-05-23       Impact factor: 5.266

3.  Quo Vadis HTA for Medical Devices in Central and Eastern Europe? Recommendations to Address Methodological Challenges.

Authors:  Rita Daubner-Bendes; Sándor Kovács; Maciej Niewada; Mirjana Huic; Michael Drummond; Oriana Ciani; Carl Rudolf Blankart; Olena Mandrik; Aleksandra Torbica; John Yfantopoulos; Guenka Petrova; Malwina Holownia-Voloskova; Rod S Taylor; Maiwenn Al; Oresta Piniazhko; László Lorenzovici; Rosanna Tarricone; Antal Zemplényi; Zoltán Kaló
Journal:  Front Public Health       Date:  2021-01-08

4.  Endovascular versus surgical creation of arteriovenous fistula in hemodialysis patients: Cost-effectiveness and budget impact analyses.

Authors:  Carla Rognoni; Matteo Tozzi; Rosanna Tarricone
Journal:  J Vasc Access       Date:  2020-05-19       Impact factor: 2.283

5.  Economic Evaluation of Digital Health Interventions: Methodological Issues and Recommendations for Practice.

Authors:  Manuel Gomes; Elizabeth Murray; James Raftery
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2022-02-08       Impact factor: 4.558

6.  Cost-effectiveness analysis of personalised versus standard dosimetry for selective internal radiation therapy with TheraSphere in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma.

Authors:  Carla Rognoni; Maria Rosa Barcellona; Irene Bargellini; Maria Grazia Bavetta; Marilena Bellò; Maurizia Brunetto; Patrizia Carucci; Roberto Cioni; Laura Crocetti; Fabio D'Amato; Mario D'Amico; Simona Deagostini; Désirée Deandreis; Paolo De Simone; Andrea Doriguzzi; Monica Finessi; Paolo Fonio; Serena Grimaldi; Salvatore Ialuna; Fabio Lagattuta; Gianluca Masi; Antonio Moreci; Daniele Scalisi; Roberto Virdone; Rosanna Tarricone
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2022-08-29       Impact factor: 5.738

Review 7.  Health technology assessment of medical devices: current landscape, challenges, and a way forward.

Authors:  Jian Ming; Yunzhen He; Yi Yang; Min Hu; Xinran Zhao; Jun Liu; Yang Xie; Yan Wei; Yingyao Chen
Journal:  Cost Eff Resour Alloc       Date:  2022-10-05

8.  Real-world evidence in health technology assessment of high-risk medical devices: Fit for purpose?

Authors:  Philip Klein; Hedwig Blommestein; Maiwenn Al; Benedetta Pongiglione; Aleksandra Torbica; Saskia de Groot
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2022-08-21       Impact factor: 2.395

9.  Coverage with evidence development for medical devices in Europe: Can practice meet theory?

Authors:  Michael Drummond; Carlo Federici; Vivian Reckers-Droog; Aleksandra Torbica; Carl Rudolf Blankart; Oriana Ciani; Zoltán Kaló; Sándor Kovács; Werner Brouwer
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2022-02-26       Impact factor: 2.395

10.  Implementation of coverage with evidence development schemes for medical devices: A decision tool for late technology adopter countries.

Authors:  Sandor Kovács; Zoltán Kaló; Rita Daubner-Bendes; Katarzyna Kolasa; Rok Hren; Tomas Tesar; Vivian Reckers-Droog; Werner Brouwer; Carlo Federici; Mike Drummond; Antal Tamás Zemplényi
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2022-03-23       Impact factor: 2.395

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.