IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharme/v35y2017i7d10.1007_s40273-017-0509-1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Emerging Use of Early Health Technology Assessment in Medical Product Development: A Scoping Review of the Literature

Author

Listed:
  • Maarten J. IJzerman

    (University of Twente
    Luxembourg Institute of Health)

  • Hendrik Koffijberg

    (University of Twente)

  • Elisabeth Fenwick

    (ICON plc.)

  • Murray Krahn

    (University of Toronto)

Abstract

Early health technology assessment is increasingly being used to support health economic evidence development during early stages of clinical research. Such early models can be used to inform research and development about the design and management of new medical technologies to mitigate the risks, perceived by industry and the public sector, associated with market access and reimbursement. Over the past 25 years it has been suggested that health economic evaluation in the early stages may benefit the development and diffusion of medical products. Early health technology assessment has been suggested in the context of iterative economic evaluation alongside phase I and II clinical research to inform clinical trial design, market access, and pricing. In addition, performing early health technology assessment was also proposed at an even earlier stage for managing technology portfolios. This scoping review suggests a generally accepted definition of early health technology assessment to be “all methods used to inform industry and other stakeholders about the potential value of new medical products in development, including methods to quantify and manage uncertainty”. The present review also aimed to identify recent published empirical studies employing an early-stage assessment of a medical product. With most included studies carried out to support a market launch, the dominant methodology was early health economic modeling. Further methodological development is required, in particular, by combining systems engineering and health economics to manage uncertainty in medical product portfolios.

Suggested Citation

  • Maarten J. IJzerman & Hendrik Koffijberg & Elisabeth Fenwick & Murray Krahn, 2017. "Emerging Use of Early Health Technology Assessment in Medical Product Development: A Scoping Review of the Literature," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 35(7), pages 727-740, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:35:y:2017:i:7:d:10.1007_s40273-017-0509-1
    DOI: 10.1007/s40273-017-0509-1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40273-017-0509-1
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40273-017-0509-1?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Wieke Haakma & Lotte Steuten & Laura Bojke & Maarten IJzerman, 2014. "Belief Elicitation to Populate Health Economic Models of Medical Diagnostic Devices in Development," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 12(3), pages 327-334, June.
    2. Maarten Ijzerman & Lotte Steuten, 2011. "Early assessment of medical technologies to inform product development and market access," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 9(5), pages 331-347, September.
    3. Susanne Hartz & Jürgen John, 2007. "The contribution of economic evaluation to decision-making in early phases of product development: a methodological and empirical review," Jena Economics Research Papers 2007-094, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    4. Michael Drummond & Adrian Towse, 2014. "Orphan drugs policies: a suitable case for treatment," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 15(4), pages 335-340, May.
    5. De Pinho Campos, Katia & Norman, Cameron D. & Jadad, Alejandro R., 2011. "Product development public–private partnerships for public health: A systematic review using qualitative data," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 73(7), pages 986-994.
    6. Warren G. Linley & Dyfrig A. Hughes, 2013. "Societal Views On Nice, Cancer Drugs Fund And Value‐Based Pricing Criteria For Prioritising Medicines: A Cross‐Sectional Survey Of 4118 Adults In Great Britain," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(8), pages 948-964, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Carlo Federici & Leandro Pecchia, 2022. "Exploring the misalignment on the value of further research between payers and manufacturers. A case study on a novel total artificial heart," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(S1), pages 98-115, September.
    2. Jonathan Dando & Maximilian Lebmeier, 2020. "A novel valuation model for medical intervention development based on progressive dynamic changes that integrates Health Technology Assessment outcomes with early-stage innovation and indication-speci," Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Springer, vol. 9(1), pages 1-28, December.
    3. Wang, Yi & Rattanavipapong, Waranya & Teerawattananon, Yot, 2021. "Using health technology assessment to set priority, inform target product profiles, and design clinical study for health innovation," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 172(C).
    4. Alessandra Castelluccia & Pierpaolo Mincarone & Maria Rosaria Tumolo & Saverio Sabina & Riccardo Colella & Antonella Bodini & Francesco Tramacere & Maurizio Portaluri & Carlo Giacomo Leo, 2022. "Economic Evaluations of Magnetic Resonance Image-Guided Radiotherapy (MRIgRT): A Systematic Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(17), pages 1-21, August.
    5. Petra Marešová & Lukáš Peter & Jan Honegr & Lukáš Režný & Marek Penhaker & Martin Augustýnek & Hana Mohelská & Blanka Klímová & Kamil Kuča, 2020. "Complexity Stage Model of the Medical Device Development Based on Economic Evaluation—MedDee," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-27, February.
    6. Florian Methling & Steffen A. Borden & Deepak Veeraraghavan & Insa Sommer & Johannes Ulrich Siebert & Rüdiger von Nitzsch & Mark Seidler, 2022. "Supporting Innovation in Early-Stage Pharmaceutical Development Decisions," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 19(4), pages 337-353, December.
    7. Euan Barlow & Alec Morton & Saudamini Dabak & Sven Engels & Wanrudee Isaranuwatchai & Yot Teerawattananon & Kalipso Chalkidou, 2022. "What is the value of explicit priority setting for health interventions? A simulation study," Health Care Management Science, Springer, vol. 25(3), pages 460-483, September.
    8. Rachel A Archer & Ritika Kapoor & Wanrudee Isaranuwatchai & Yot Teerawattananon & Birgitte Giersing & Siobhan Botwright & Jos Luttjeboer & Raymond C W Hutubessy, 2020. "‘It takes two to tango’: Bridging the gap between country need and vaccine product innovation," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(6), pages 1-11, June.
    9. Carlo Lazzaro & Cecile van Steen & Florent Aptel & Cedric Schweitzer & Luigi Angelillo, 2022. "Cost-Utility Analysis of STN1013001, a Latanoprost Cationic Emulsion, versus Other Latanoprost Formulations (Latanoprost) in Open-Angle Glaucoma or Ocular Hypertension and Ocular Surface Disease in Fr," Post-Print hal-03696350, HAL.
    10. Blankart, Carl Rudolf & Dams, Florian & Penton, Hannah & Kaló, Zoltán & Zemplényi, Antal & Shatrov, Kosta & Iskandar, Rowan & Federici, Carlo, 2021. "Regulatory and HTA early dialogues in medical devices," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 125(10), pages 1322-1329.
    11. Rowan Iskandar & Carlo Federici & Cassandra Berns & Carl Rudolf Blankart, 2022. "An approach to quantify parameter uncertainty in early assessment of novel health technologies," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(S1), pages 116-134, September.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Kleinhout-Vliek, Tineke & de Bont, Antoinette & Boer, Bert, 2017. "The bare necessities? A realist review of necessity argumentations used in health care coverage decisions," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(7), pages 731-744.
    2. Nicod, Elena & Annemans, Lieven & Bucsics, Anna & Lee, Anne & Upadhyaya, Sheela & Facey, Karen, 2019. "HTA programme response to the challenges of dealing with orphan medicinal products: Process evaluation in selected European countries," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 123(2), pages 140-151.
    3. Markiewicz, Katarzyna & van Til, Janine A. & Steuten, Lotte M.G. & IJzerman, Maarten J., 2016. "Commercial viability of medical devices using Headroom and return on investment calculation," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 338-346.
    4. Fischer, Barbara & Telser, Harry & Zweifel, Peter & von Wyl, Viktor & Beck, Konstantin & Weber, Andreas, 2023. "The value of a QALY towards the end of life and its determinants: Experimental evidence," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 326(C).
    5. Maarten Ijzerman & Lotte Steuten, 2011. "Early assessment of medical technologies to inform product development and market access," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 9(5), pages 331-347, September.
    6. Robertson-Preidler, Joelle & Anstey, Matthew & Biller-Andorno, Nikola & Norrish, Alexandra, 2017. "Approaches to appropriate care delivery from a policy perspective: A case study of Australia, England and Switzerland," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(7), pages 770-777.
    7. Kanavos, Panos & Visintin, Erica & Gentilini, Arianna, 2023. "Algorithms and heuristics of health technology assessments: A retrospective analysis of factors associated with HTA outcomes for new drugs across seven OECD countries," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 331(C).
    8. Wang, Yi & Rattanavipapong, Waranya & Teerawattananon, Yot, 2021. "Using health technology assessment to set priority, inform target product profiles, and design clinical study for health innovation," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 172(C).
    9. McHugh, Neil & Pinto-Prades, José Luis & Baker, Rachel & Mason, Helen & Donaldson, Cam, 2020. "Exploring the relative value of end of life QALYs: Are the comparators important?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 245(C).
    10. Patrícia Véras Marrone & Fabio Rampazzo Mathias & Wanderley Marques Bernardo & Marina Feliciano Orlandini & Maria Carolina Andrade Serafim & Maria Lídia Rebello Pinho Dias Scoton & Juliano Marçal Lope, 2023. "Decision Criteria for Partial Nationalization of Pharmaceutical Supply Chain: A Scoping Review," Economies, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-21, January.
    11. J.-Matthias Schulenburg & Martin Frank, 2015. "Rare is frequent and frequent is costly: rare diseases as a challenge for health care systems," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 16(2), pages 113-118, March.
    12. Michael Drummond & Adrian Towse, 2014. "Orphan drugs policies: a suitable case for treatment," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 15(4), pages 335-340, May.
    13. Chamberlain, Charlotte & Owen-Smith, Amanda & MacKichan, Fiona & Donovan, Jenny L. & Hollingworth, William, 2019. "“What’s fair to an individual is not always fair to a population”: A qualitative study of patients and their health professionals using the Cancer Drugs Fund," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 123(8), pages 706-712.
    14. Rowan Iskandar & Carlo Federici & Cassandra Berns & Carl Rudolf Blankart, 2022. "An approach to quantify parameter uncertainty in early assessment of novel health technologies," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(S1), pages 116-134, September.
    15. Shah, Koonal K. & Tsuchiya, Aki & Wailoo, Allan J., 2015. "Valuing health at the end of life: A stated preference discrete choice experiment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 48-56.
    16. Liz Morrell & Sarah Wordsworth & Sian Rees & Richard Barker, 2017. "Does the Public Prefer Health Gain for Cancer Patients? A Systematic Review of Public Views on Cancer and its Characteristics," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 35(8), pages 793-804, August.
    17. Degtiar, Irina, 2017. "A review of international coverage and pricing strategies for personalized medicine and orphan drugs," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(12), pages 1240-1248.
    18. Adam Fridhammar & Ulrika Axelsson & Ulf Persson & Anders Bjartell & Carl A. K. Borrebaeck, 2021. "The Value of a New Diagnostic Test for Prostate Cancer: A Cost-Utility Analysis in Early Stage of Development," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 5(1), pages 77-88, March.
    19. S. Olofsson & U.-G. Gerdtham & L. Hultkrantz & U. Persson, 2018. "Measuring the end-of-life premium in cancer using individual ex ante willingness to pay," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 19(6), pages 807-820, July.
    20. Petra Marešová & Lukáš Peter & Jan Honegr & Lukáš Režný & Marek Penhaker & Martin Augustýnek & Hana Mohelská & Blanka Klímová & Kamil Kuča, 2020. "Complexity Stage Model of the Medical Device Development Based on Economic Evaluation—MedDee," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-27, February.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:35:y:2017:i:7:d:10.1007_s40273-017-0509-1. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.