Dataset Information

Defining the clinician's role in early health technology assessment during medical device innovation - a systematic review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Early Health Technology Assessment (EHTA) is an evolving field in health policy which aims to provide decision support and mitigate risk during early medical device innovation. The clinician is a key stakeholder in this process and their role has traditionally been confined to assessing device efficacy and safety alone. There is however, no data exploring their role in this process and how they can contribute towards it. This motivated us to carry out a systematic review to delineate the role of the clinician in EHTA as per the PRISMA guidelines.

Methods

A systematic search of peer reviewed literature was undertaken across PUBMED, OVID Medline and Web of science up till June 2018. Studies that were suitable for inclusion focused on clinician input in health technology assessment or early medical device innovation. A qualitative approach was utilised to generate themes on how clinicians could contribute in general and specific areas of EHTA. Data was manually extracted by the authors and themes were agreed in consensus using a grounded theory framework. The specific stages included: All stages of EHTA, Basic research on mechanisms, Targeting for specific product, Proof of principle and Prototype and product development. Bias was assessed utilising the NICE Qualitative checklist.

Results

A total of 33 articles met the inclusion criteria for the review. Areas identified in which the clinicians could contribute to EHTA included: i) needs driven problem solving, ii) conformity assessment of MDs, iii) economic evaluation of MDs and iv) addressing the conflicts in interest. For clinicians' input across the various specific areas of EHTA, an innovation framework was generated based on the subthemes extracted.

Conclusions

The following review has identified the various segments in which clinicians can contribute to EHTA to inform stakeholders and has also proposed an innovation framework.

SUBMITTER: Smith V

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6651962 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ProblemPhysicians are playing a growing role as clinician-innovators. Academic physicians are well positioned to contribute to the medical device innovation process, yet few medical school curricula provide students opportunities to learn the conceptual framework for clinical needs finding, needs screening, concept generation and iterative prototyping, and intellectual property management. This framework supports innovation and encourages the development of valuable interdisciplinary communication skills and collaborative learning strategies.ApproachOur university offers a novel 3-year-long medical student Longitudinal Interdisciplinary Elective in Biodesign (MSLIEB) that teaches medical device innovation in 4 stages: (1) seminars and small-group work, (2) shared clinical experiences for needs finding, (3) concept generation and product development by serving as consultants for biomedical engineering capstone projects, and (4) reflection and mentorship. The MSLIEB objectives are to: create a longitudinal interdisciplinary peer mentorship relationship between undergraduate biomedical engineering students and medical students, and encourage codevelopment of professional identities in relation to medical device innovation.OutcomesThe MSLIEB enrolled 5 entering cohorts from 2017 to 2021 with a total of 37 medical student participants. The first full entering cohort of 12 medical students produced 8 mentored biomedical engineering capstone projects, 7 of which were based on clinical needs statements derived from earlier in the elective. Medical student participants have coauthored poster and oral presentations; contributed to projects that won WolfieTank, a university-wide competition modeled after the television show Shark Tank; and participated in the filing of provisional patents. Students reflecting on the course reported a change in their attitude towards existing medical problems, felt better-equipped to collaboratively design solutions for clinical needs, and considered a potential career path in device design.Next stepsThe MSLIEB will be scaled up by recruiting additional faculty, broadening clinical opportunities to include the outpatient setting, and increasing medical student access to rapid prototyping equipment.

Project description:BackgroundTotal knee arthroplasty (TKA) is common, effective, and cost-effective. Innovative implants promising reduced long-term failure at increased cost are under continual development. We sought to define the implant cost and performance thresholds under which innovative TKA implants are cost-effective.MethodsWe performed a cost-effectiveness analysis using a validated, published computer simulation model of knee osteoarthritis. Model inputs were derived using published literature, Medicare claims, and National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey data. We compared projected TKA implant survival, quality-adjusted life expectancy (QALE), lifetime costs, and cost-effectiveness (incremental cost-effectiveness ratios or ICERs) of standard versus innovative TKA implants. We assumed innovative implants offered 5-70% decreased long-term TKA failure rates at costs 20-400% increased above standard implants. We examined the impact of patient age, comorbidity, and potential increases in short-term failure on innovative implant cost-effectiveness.ResultsImplants offering ?50% decrease in long-term TKA failure at ?50% increased cost offered ICERs <$100,000 regardless of age or baseline comorbidity. An implant offering a 20% decrease in long-term failure at 50% increased cost provided ICERs <$150,000 per QALY gained only among healthy 50-59-year-olds. Increasing short-term failure, consistent with recent device failures, reduced cost-effectiveness across all groups. Increasing the baseline likelihood of long-term TKA failure among younger, healthier and more active individuals further enhanced innovative implant cost-effectiveness among younger patients.ConclusionsInnovative implants must decrease actual TKA failure, not just radiographic wear, by 50-55% or more over standard implants to be broadly cost-effective. Comorbidity and remaining life span significantly affect innovative implant cost-effectiveness and should be considered in the development, approval and implementation of novel technologies, particularly in orthopedics. Model-based evaluations such as this offer valuable, unique insights for evaluating technological innovation in medical devices.

Project description:BackgroundWithin the rapidly evolving healthcare landscape in Japan, digital marketing innovations are transforming pharmaceutical and medical device marketing. This study explores the emergence of new business models in the digital marketing, highlighting a transition from traditional methods to more dynamic, data-driven strategies.MethodsInsighTCROSS® is a business model that qualitatively and quantitatively examines three steps based on stratified persona images: (1) verifying the effectiveness of product marketing promotions, (2) identifying competitors from the users' perspective, and (3) developing marketing strategies to counter competition. To demonstrate the effectiveness of this model, a case study was conducted focusing on the current anticoagulant drugs, including apixaban, dabigatran, edoxaban, rivaroxaban, and warfarin.ResultsRivaroxaban, the only drug prescribed for the prevention of thrombus and embolism formation in patients with peripheral artery disease after lower limb revascularization, garnered the most interest from interventional cardiologists performing peripheral vascular interventions, as determined by InsighTCROSS® factor analysis, confirming that the manufacturer's marketing activities have effectively penetrated the market. A survey conducted between 20 September 2023 and 3 October 2023, among members of a cardiology website, identified edoxaban as the market leader with a 39.1% share, followed by apixaban (32.7%) and rivaroxaban (16.8%). The main competitor of edoxaban was warfarin, whereas that of rivaroxaban was apixaban. Decision tree analysis was conducted using InsighTCROSS®, highlighting the strengths and weaknesses of each anticoagulant, providing strategic approaches to exploit competitive weaknesses. For edoxaban, increased use was driven by elderly and poorly adherent patients; for apixaban, high-volume percutaneous coronary intervention centers; and for rivaroxaban, the influence of medical representative detailing. It is recommended to avoid markets where these drugs have a strong presence and to focus marketing activities on leveraging their specific strengths.ConclusionThe findings suggest that digital marketing enhances product visibility and patient engagement, providing valuable insights into market behavior and consumer preferences.

Project description:BackgroundWhat constitutes innovation in health technologies can be defined and measured in a number of ways and it has been widely researched and published about. However, while many countries mention it as a criterion for pricing or reimbursement of health technologies, countries differ widely in how they define and operationalise it.MethodsWe performed a literature review, using a snowballing search. In this paper, we explore how innovation has been defined in the literature in relation to health technology assessment. We also describe how a selection of countries (England, France, Italy, Spain and Japan) take account of innovation in their health technology assessment frameworks and explore the key methodologies that can capture it as a dimension of value in a new health technology. We propose a way of coming to, and incorporating into health technology assessment systems, a definition of innovation for health technologies that is independent of other dimensions of value that they already account for in their systems, such as clinical benefit. We use Spain as an illustrative example of how innovation might be operationalised as a criterion for decision making in health technology assessment.ResultsThe countries analysed here can be divided into 2 groups with respect to how they define innovation. France, Japan and Italy use features such as severity, unmet need and therapeutic added value as indicators of the degree of innovation of a health technology, while England, Spain consider the degree of innovation as a separate and additional criterion from others. In the case of Spain, a notion of innovation might be constructed around concepts of `step-change', `convenience', `strength of evidence base' and `impact on future research & development'.ConclusionsIf innovation is to be used as operational criteria for adoption, pricing and reimbursement of health technologies, the concept must be clearly defined, and it ought to be independent from other value dimensions already captured in their health technology assessment systems.