1
|
Bachmann TT, Mitsakakis K, Hays JP, van Belkum A, Russom A, Luedke G, Simonsen GS, Abel G, Peter H, Goossens H, Moran-Gilad J, Vila J, Becker K, Moons P, Sampath R, Peeling RW, Luz S, van Staa T, Di Gregori V. Expert guidance on target product profile development for AMR diagnostic tests. BMJ Glob Health 2023; 8:e012319. [PMID: 38114235 DOI: 10.1136/bmjgh-2023-012319] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/16/2023] [Accepted: 11/10/2023] [Indexed: 12/21/2023] Open
Abstract
Diagnostics are widely considered crucial in the fight against antimicrobial resistance (AMR), which is expected to kill 10 million people annually by 2030. Nevertheless, there remains a substantial gap between the need for AMR diagnostics versus their development and implementation. To help address this problem, target product profiles (TPP) have been developed to focus developers' attention on the key aspects of AMR diagnostic tests. However, during discussion between a multisectoral working group of 51 international experts from industry, academia and healthcare, it was noted that specific AMR-related TPPs could be extended by incorporating the interdependencies between the key characteristics associated with the development of such TPPs. Subsequently, the working group identified 46 characteristics associated with six main categories (ie, Intended Use, Diagnostic Question, Test Description, Assay Protocol, Performance and Commercial). The interdependencies of these characteristics were then identified and mapped against each other to generate new insights for use by stakeholders. Specifically, it may not be possible for diagnostics developers to achieve all of the recommendations in every category of a TPP and this publication indicates how prioritising specific TPP characteristics during diagnostics development may influence (or not) a range of other TPP characteristics associated with the diagnostic. The use of such guidance, in conjunction with specific TPPs, could lead to more efficient AMR diagnostics development.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Till T Bachmann
- Center for Inflammation Research, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
| | - Konstantinos Mitsakakis
- Laboratory for MEMS Applications, IMTEK-Department of Microsystems Engineering, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
- Hahn-Schickard, Freiburg, Germany
| | - John P Hays
- Department of Medical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases, Erasmus University Medical Centre (Erasmus MC), Rotterdam, Netherlands
| | - Alex van Belkum
- BioMérieux Open Innovation & Partnerships, La Balme Les Grottes, France
| | - Aman Russom
- Division of Nanobiotechnology, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden
| | | | - Gunnar Skov Simonsen
- Department of Microbiology and Infection Control, University Hospital of North Norway, Tromsø, Norway
- Faculty of Health Sciences, UiT - The Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø, Norway
| | - Gyorgy Abel
- Division of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Lahey Hospital & Medical Center, Burlington, Massachusetts, USA
- Department of Pathology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
| | - Harald Peter
- Branch Bioanalytics and Bioprocesses, Fraunhofer Institute for Cell Therapy and Immunology, Potsdam, Germany
| | - Herman Goossens
- Vaccine & Infectious Disease Institute (VAXINFECTIO), University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium
- Department of Medical Microbiology, Antwerp University Hospital, Antwerp, Belgium
| | - Jacob Moran-Gilad
- Department of Health Policy and Management, School of Public Health, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva, Israel
| | - Jordi Vila
- Department of Clinical Microbiology, Biomedical Diagnostic Centre (CDB), Hospital Clínic, School of Medicine, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
| | | | - Pieter Moons
- Vaccine & Infectious Disease Institute (VAXINFECTIO), University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium
- Department of Medical Microbiology, Antwerp University Hospital, Antwerp, Belgium
| | | | - Rosanna W Peeling
- Department of Clinical Research, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine Faculty of Infectious and Tropical Diseases, London, UK
| | - Saturnino Luz
- Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
| | - Tjeerd van Staa
- Health eResearch Centre, Farr Institute for Health Informatics Research, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | | |
Collapse
|
2
|
Rodriguez Llorian E, Waliji LA, Dragojlovic N, Michaux KD, Nagase F, Lynd LD. Frameworks for Health Technology Assessment at an Early Stage of Product Development: A Review and Roadmap to Guide Applications. VALUE IN HEALTH : THE JOURNAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR PHARMACOECONOMICS AND OUTCOMES RESEARCH 2023:S1098-3015(23)00107-9. [PMID: 36990207 DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2023.03.009] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/04/2022] [Revised: 02/18/2023] [Accepted: 03/16/2023] [Indexed: 05/20/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES Early health technology assessment (eHTA) can be used to evaluate and optimize a medical product's value proposition and to inform go/no-go decisions by using health economic modeling, literature scanning, and stakeholder preference studies at an early stage of development. eHTA frameworks offer high-level guidance on conducting this complex, iterative, and multidisciplinary process. The objective of this study was to review and summarize existing eHTA frameworks, understood as systematic approaches to guide early evidence generation and decision making. METHODS Using a rapid review methodology, we identified all relevant studies published in English, French, and Spanish from PubMed/MEDLINE and Embase until February 2022. We only included frameworks relevant to the preclinical and early clinical (phase I) stages of medical product development. RESULTS From 737 reviewed abstracts, 53 publications describing 46 frameworks were selected for inclusion and classified into categories based on their scope: (1) criteria frameworks, which provide an overview of eHTA; (2) process frameworks, which offer stepwise guidance for conducting eHTA, including preferred methods; and (3) methods frameworks, which provide detailed descriptions of specific eHTA methods. Most of the frameworks did not specify their target users or the specific stage of technology development. CONCLUSIONS Despite some variability and gaps found across existing frameworks, the structure provided by this review helps inform eHTA applications. Remaining challenges are the frameworks' limited accessibility to users without a background in health economics, poor distinctions being made among early lifecycle stages and technology types, and the inconsistent terminology used to describe eHTA in different contexts.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Elisabet Rodriguez Llorian
- Collaboration for Outcomes Research and Evaluation (CORE), Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada
| | - Louloua Ashikhusein Waliji
- Collaboration for Outcomes Research and Evaluation (CORE), Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada
| | - Nick Dragojlovic
- Collaboration for Outcomes Research and Evaluation (CORE), Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada
| | - Kristina D Michaux
- Collaboration for Outcomes Research and Evaluation (CORE), Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada
| | - Fernanda Nagase
- Collaboration for Outcomes Research and Evaluation (CORE), Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada
| | - Larry D Lynd
- Collaboration for Outcomes Research and Evaluation (CORE), Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada; Centre for Health Evaluation and Outcome Sciences (CHÉOS), St. Paul's Hospital, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Reynard C, Allen JA, Shinkins B, Prestwich G, Goves J, Davies K, Body R. COVID-19 rapid diagnostics: practice review. Emerg Med J 2021; 39:70-76. [PMID: 34740887 PMCID: PMC8717473 DOI: 10.1136/emermed-2021-211814] [Citation(s) in RCA: 16] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/05/2021] [Accepted: 10/27/2021] [Indexed: 11/04/2022]
Abstract
Point-of-care tests for SARS-CoV-2 could enable rapid rule-in and/or rule-out of COVID-19, allowing rapid and accurate patient cohorting and potentially reducing the risk of nosocomial transmission. As COVID-19 begins to circulate with other more common respiratory viruses, there is a need for rapid diagnostics to help clinicians test for multiple potential causative organisms simultaneously.However, the different technologies available have strengths and weaknesses that must be understood to ensure that they are used to the benefit of the patient and healthcare system. Device performance is related to the deployed context, and the diagnostic characteristics may be affected by user experience.This practice review is written by members of the UK's COVID-19 National Diagnostic Research and Evaluation programme. We discuss relative merits and test characteristics of various commercially available technologies. We do not advocate for any given test, and our coverage of commercially supplied tests is not intended to be exhaustive.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Charles Reynard
- Emergency Department, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK .,Division of Cardiovascular Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - Joy A Allen
- NIHR Newcastle In Vitro Diagnostics Co-operative, Translational and Clinical Research Institute, Newcastle University School of Clinical Medical Sciences, Newcastle University, Tyne and Wear, UK.,Newcastle Upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK
| | - Bethany Shinkins
- Test Evaluation Group, Leeds Institute for Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
| | - Graham Prestwich
- Patient and Public Involvement, Yorkshire and Humber Academic Health Science Networks, Leeds, UK
| | - Johnathan Goves
- Division of Cardiovascular Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - Kerrie Davies
- Healthcare Associated Infections Research Group, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.,NIHR Leeds In Vitro Diagnostics Co-operative, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
| | - Richard Body
- Emergency Department, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK.,Division of Cardiovascular Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | | |
Collapse
|