Evidence-based decision-making for diagnostic and therapeutic methods: the changing landscape of assessment approaches in Germany

Shaping a suitable EU HTA dossier template: why the German template is not fit for purpose

From 2025, Health Technology Developers (HTDs) have to submit EU HTA dossiers. The joint clinical assessment (JCA) aims to streamline HTA processes and access to medicinal products across Europe. Currently, German HTA bodies IQWiG and G-BA actively shape the JCA methodology. Here we examine if German HTA dossier requirements are suitable for the JCA. We compare the number of safety endpoint and subgroup analyses in German dossiers with analyses considered in IQWIG's benefit assessment and evaluate if these analyses were considered by the G-BA. We further investigated how the number of analyses was affected by the latest change in the German dossier template. With the current template, HTDs report in median 2.6 times more analyses on adverse events (AE) and 1.1 times more subgroup categories than in the previous template. IQWiG does not consider 33% of AE analyses and 73% of the subgroup categories presented by the HTD under the current template. G-BA considered the same AE as IQWiG in 76% of cases. Subgroups were uncommented by G-BA in most cases, independent of the template (previous: 93%, current 85%) and unconsidered in the conclusion on additional benefit (previous: 77%, current 69%). Thus, changes in the dossier template drastically increased HTD workload, but additional analyses seem unconsidered by the HTA bodies. With a broader scope in JCA, this effect could be amplified. To mitigate duplicative efforts and ensure prompt availability of medicinal products as envisioned by the HTAR, we suggest well-chosen and precise dossier requirements, early consultations, and early HTD engagement.

Implementation of innovative medical technologies in German inpatient care: patterns of utilization and evidence development

BACKGROUND

Innovative medical technologies are commonly associated with positive expectations. At the time of their introduction into care, there is often little evidence available regarding their benefits and harms. Accordingly, some innovative medical technologies with a lack of evidence are used widely until or even though findings of adverse events emerge, while others with study results supporting their safety and effectiveness remain underused. This study aims at examining the diffusion patterns of innovative medical technologies in German inpatient care between 2005 and 2017 while simultaneously considering evidence development.

METHODS

Based on a qualitatively derived typology and a quantitative clustering of the adoption curves, a representative sample of 21 technologies was selected for further evaluation. Published scientific evidence on efficacy/effectiveness and safety of the technologies was identified and extracted in a systematic approach. Derived from a two-dimensional classification according to the degree of utilization and availability of supportive evidence, the diffusion patterns were then assigned to the categories "Success" (widespread/positive), "Hazard" (widespread/negative), "Overadoption" (widespread/limited or none), "Underadoption" (cautious/positive), "Vigilance" (cautious/negative), and "Prudence" (cautious/limited or none).

RESULTS

Overall, we found limited evidence on the examined technologies regarding both the quantity and quality of published randomized controlled trials. Thus, the categories "Prudence" and "Overadoption" together account for nearly three-quarters of the years evaluated, followed by "Success" with 17%. Even when evidence is available, the transfer of knowledge into practice appears to be inhibited.

CONCLUSIONS

The successful implementation of safe and effective innovative medical technologies into practice requires substantial further efforts by policymakers to strengthen systematic knowledge generation and translation. Creating an environment that encourages the conduct of rigorous studies, promotes knowledge translation, and rewards innovative medical technologies according to their added value is a prerequisite for the diffusion of valuable health care.

Rapid point-of-care testing for COVID-19: quality of supportive information for lateral flow serology assays

OBJECTIVE

There is a lack of evidence addressing several important human factors questions pertaining to the quality of supportive information provided by commercial manufacturers that can affect the adoption and use of lateral flow serology assays in practice. We aimed to: (1) identify and assess the quality of information that commercial manufacturers provided for their point-of-care tests (POCTs) and (2) examine the implications of these findings on real-world settings.

DESIGN

We used a content analysis methodology in two stages to systematically, code and analyse textual data from documents of commercial manufacturers. A deductive approach was applied using a coding guide based on the validated Point-of-Care Key Evidence Tool (POCKET) multidimensional checklist. An inductive approach was used to identify new patterns or themes generated from our textual analysis.

SETTING

Publicly available supportive information documents by commercial manufacturers for lateral flow serology, were identified and gathered from online searches.

PARTICIPANTS

Supportive information documents retrieved from online searches over 3 months (March 2020 to June 2020).

RESULTS

A total of 79 POCTs were identified that met the study inclusion criteria. Using the POCKET coding guide, we found that the quality of information varied significantly between the manufacturers and was often lacking in detail. Our inductive approach further examined these topics and found that several statements were vague and that significant variations in the level of details existed between manufacturers.

CONCLUSIONS

This study revealed significant concerns surrounding the supportive information reported by manufacturers for lateral flow serology assays. Information transparency was poor and human factor issues were not properly addressed to mitigate the risk of improper device use, although it should be noted that the results of our study are limited by the data that manufactures were prepared to disclose. Overall, commercial manufacturers should improve the quality and value of information presented in their supporting documentation.

Private health insurance coverage-related lawsuits

ABSTRACT Objectives: to analyze lawsuits brought by beneficiaries of health insurance operators. Methods: this was a cross-sectional descriptive study carried out in a large-capacity private health insurance operator using data collected by the company from 2012 to 2015. Results: ninety-six lawsuits were brought by 86 beneficiaries regarding medical procedures (38.5%), treatments (26.1%), examinations (14.6%), medications (9.4%), home care (6.2%), and other types of hospitalization (5.2%). The procedures with the highest number of lawsuits were percutaneous rhizotomy; chemotherapy; treatment-related positron-emission tomography scans; and for medications relative to antineoplastic and Hepatitis C treatment. Conclusions: the lawsuits were filed because of the operators’ refusal to comply with items not established in contracts or not regulated and authorized by the Brazilian National Regulatory Agency for Private Health Insurance and Plans, refusals considered unfounded.

[Assessing the benefits of digital health solutions in the societal reimbursement context]

For a number of reasons, achieving reimbursability for digital health products has so far proven difficult. Demonstrating the benefits of the technology is the main hurdle in this context. The generally accepted evaluation processes, especially parallel group comparisons in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for (clinical) benefit assessment, are primarily intended to deal with questions of (added) medical benefit. In contrast to drugs or classical medical devices, users of digital health solutions often profit from gaining autonomy, increased awareness and mindfulness, better transparency in the provision of care, and improved comfort, although there are also digital solutions with an interventional character targeting clinical outcomes (e. g. for indications such as anorexia, depression). Commonly accepted methods for evaluating (clinical) benefits primarily rely on medical outcomes, such as morbidity and mortality, but do not adequately consider additional benefits unique to digital health. The challenge is therefore to develop evaluation designs that respect the particularities of digital health without reducing the validity of the evaluations (especially with respect to safety). There is an increasing need for concepts that include both continuous feedback loops for adapting and improving an application while at the same time generate sufficient evidence for complex benefit assessments. This approach may help improve risk benefit ratio assessments of digital health when it comes to implementing digital innovations in healthcare.

Physicians' Decision Making on Adoption of New Technologies and Role of Coverage with Evidence Development: A Qualitative Study

OBJECTIVES

To foster value-based pricing and coverage with evidence development in Germany, certain new diagnostic and treatment methods have been subject to a benefit assessment since 2016 to determine their reimbursement. Although this is a paradigm shift, the German approach is limited to some few specific technologies for which reimbursement is requested. As physicians encounter this regulatory instrument, the aim of the study was to understand physicians' decision making regarding the adoption of new medical technologies and to identify their perspectives on the evidence base and financing with additional reimbursement systems.

METHODS

From April to August 2017, semistructured interviews with chief and senior physicians of vascular surgery and cardiology in inpatient care in Germany were conducted (N = 23). The interviews were carried out by one researcher in one-to-one appointments or via telephone. Data were analyzed inductively to identify factors and generate thematic categories using qualitative content analysis.

RESULTS

We identified 52 factors in eight categories influencing physicians' adoption of new technologies. The evidence base for new technologies was criticized (e.g., lack of available studies). Physicians' knowledge of the regulation of market approval and innovation payments varied. They recommended the utilization of new technologies in certain specialist centers and the facilitation of observational studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Physicians saw the need for the new approach and supported its aim. However, its design and implementation appeared to be questionable from their medical perspective. The provision of summarized information on the benefit of technologies might be a possibility to assist physicians' decision making.