Early assessment of medical technologies to inform product development and market access: A review of methods and applications

Applied Health Economics and Health Policy

Volumn 9, Issue 5, 2011, Pages 331-347

  Ijzerman, Maarten J ^a   Steuten, Lotte M G ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TWENTE   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Research and development

Indexed keywords

BASIC RESEARCH; BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; CLINICAL RESEARCH; CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK; DECISION MAKING; HEALTH CARE INDUSTRY; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HEALTH ECONOMICS; HUMAN; INVESTMENT; MARKET; MEDICAL INSTRUMENTATION; MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY; PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT; PROSPECTIVE PRICING; REVIEW; TRANSLATIONAL RESEARCH;

COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DECISION MAKING; HEALTH CARE SECTOR; HUMANS; RESEARCH; TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, BIOMEDICAL;

EID: 80052257759     PISSN: 11755652     EISSN: 11791896     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2165/11593380-000000000-00000     Document Type: Review

References (93)

1. Dorsey ER, de Roulet J, Thompson JP, et al. Funding of US biomedical research, 2003-2008. JAMA 2010 Jan 13; 303 (2): 137-43
2. Portilla LM, Alving B. Reaping the benefits of biomedical research: Partnerships required. Sci Transl Med 2010 Jun 9; 2 (35): 35cm17
3. Talaga P. Open innovation: Share or die. Drug Discov Today 2009 Nov 1; 14 (21-22): 1003-5
4. Melese T, Lin SM, Chang JL, et al. Open innovation networks between academia and industry: An imperative for breakthrough therapies. Nat Med 2009May 1; 15 (5): 502-7
5. Moses H, Martin JB. Academic relationships with industry: A new model for biomedical research. JAMA 2001 Feb 21; 285 (7): 933-5 (Pubitemid 32171555)
6. Chesbrough H, Crowther K. Beyond high tech: Early adopters of open innovation in other industries. R&D Management 2006 Jan 1; 36 (3): 229-36 (Pubitemid 43824121)
7. Hartz S, John J. Public health policy decisions on medical innovations: What role can early economic evaluation play? Health Policy 2009 Feb 1; 89 (2): 184-92
8. Murphy K, Packer C, Stevens A, et al. Effective early warning systems for new and emerging health technologies: Developing an evaluation framework and an assessment of current systems. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2007 Jun 21; 23 (3): 324-30 (Pubitemid 46956886)
9. Wild C, Langer T. Emerging health technologies: Informing and supporting health policy early. Health Policy 2008 Aug 1; 87 (2): 160-71
10. Hartz S, John J. Contribution of economic evaluation to decision making in early phases of product development: A methodological and empirical review. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2008 Oct 3; 24 (4): 465-72
11. Chalmers I. Biomedical research: Are we getting value for money? Significance 2006 Jan 1: 172-5 (Pubitemid 44826147)
12. Cookson R, McDaid D, Maynard A. Wrong SIGN, NICE mess: Is national guidance distorting allocation of resources? BMJ 2001 Sep 29; 323 (7315): 743-5 (Pubitemid 32929442)
13. Caro JJ, Nord E, Siebert U, et al. The efficiency frontier approach to economic evaluation of health-care interventions. Health Econ 2010 Sep 1; 19 (10): 1117-27
14. Towse A. Value based pricing, research and development, and patient access schemes: Will the United Kingdom get it right or wrong? Br J Clin Pharmacol 2010 Aug 1; 70 (3): 360-6
15. Bianchini D, Zivi A, Sandhu S, et al. Horizon scanning for novel therapeutics for the treatment of prostate cancer. Ann Oncol 2010 Oct 1; 21 Suppl. 7: vii43-55
16. Mortimer D. Modelling downstream effects in the presence of technological change. Pharmacoeconomics 2008; 26 (12): 991-1003
17. Püntmann I, Schmacke N,Melander A, et al. EVITA: A tool for the early EValuation of pharmaceutical Innovations with regard to Therapeutic Advantage. BMC Clin Pharmacol 2010 Mar 16; 10: 5
18. Carlsson P, Jørgensen T. Scanning the horizon for emerging health technologies: Conclusions from a European Workshop. Int J Tech Assess Health Care 1998; 14 (4): 695-704 (Pubitemid 29029299)
19. Sculpher M, Drummond M, Buxton M. The iterative use of economic evaluation as part of the process of health technology assessment. J Health Serv Res Policy 1997 Jan; 2 (1): 26-30 (Pubitemid 27077650)
20. Vallejo-Torres L, Steuten LMG, Buxton MJ, et al. Integrating health economics modeling in the product development cycle of medical devices: A Bayesian approach. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2008 Oct 3; 24 (4): 459-64
21. Vallejo-Torres L, Steuten L, Parkinson B, et al. Integrating health economics into the product development cycle: A case study of absorbable pins for treating hallux valgus. Med Decis Making. Epub 2010 Dec 2
22. Steuten L, Vallejo-Torres L, Bastide P, et al. Analysing uncertainty around costs of innovative medical technologies: The case of fibrin sealant (QUIXIL) for total knee replacement. Health Policy 2009 Jan 1; 89 (1): 46-57
23. Fenwick E, Palmer S, ClaxtonK, et al. An iterative Bayesian approach to health technology assessment: Application to a policy of preoperative optimization for patients undergoing major elective surgery. Med Decis Making 2006 Sep- Oct; 26 (5): 480-96 (Pubitemid 44410298)
24. Pietzsch JB, Pate-Cornell ME. Early technology assessment of new medical devices. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2008; 24 (1): 36-44 (Pubitemid 351158541)
25. Kim WJ, Lee JD, Kim TY. Demand forecasting for multigenerational products combining discrete choice and dynamics of diffusion under technological trajectories. Technol Forecast Soc Change 2005 Jan 1; 72: 25
26. Masum H, Ranck J, Singer PA. Five promising methods for health foresight. Foresight 2010 Jan 1; 12 (1):54-66
27. Rogers MJ, Gupta A, Maranas CD. Real options based analysis of optimal pharmaceutical research and development portfolios. Ind Eng Chem Res 2002; 41 (25): 6607-20 (Pubitemid 35429854)
28. Gelijns A, Rosenberg N. The dynamics of technological change in medicine. Health Aff (Millwood) 1994; 13 (3): 28-46 (Pubitemid 24252112)
29. Schot J, Rip A. The past and future of constructive technology assessment. Technol Forecast Soc Change 1997 Apr; 54 (2-3): 251-68 (Pubitemid 127423834)
30. Guston D. Real-time technology assessment. Technol Soc 2002; 24 (1-2): 93-109 (Pubitemid 34290508)
31. Phaal R, Farrukh CJP, Probert DR. Technology roadmapping: A planning framework for evolution and revolution. Technol Forecast Soc Change 2004 Jan 1; 71: 5-26 (Pubitemid 38047683)
32. Shaw B. Innovation and new product development in the UK medical equipment industry. Int J Technol Manage 1998; 15 (3/4/5): 433-45 (Pubitemid 128634902)
33. Cosh E, Girling A, Lilford R, et al. Investing in new medical technologies: A decision framework. J Commercial Biotechnol 2007 Aug; 13 (4): 263-71 (Pubitemid 47506004)
34. Zenios S, Makower J, Yock P, et al. Biodesign: The process of innovating medical technologies. 1st ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009
35. Grant J, Cottrell R, Cluzeau F, et al. Evaluating 'payback' on biomedical research from papers cited in clinical guidelines: Applied bibliometric study. BMJ 2000; 320 (7242): 1107-11 (Pubitemid 30213967)
36. Mindell JS, Boltong A, Forde I. A review of health impact assessment frameworks. Public Health 2008 Nov 1; 122 (11): 1177-87
37. Saaty TL. The analytic hierarchy process: Planning, priority setting and resource allocation. London: McGraw Hill International Ltd, 1980
38. Lancsar E, Louviere J. Conducting discrete choice experiments to inform healthcare decision making: A user's guide. Pharmacoeconomics 2008; 26 (8): 661-77 (Pubitemid 351989058)
39. Ryan M, Gerard K, Amaya-Amaya M. Using discrete choice experiments to value health and health care. Dordrecht: Springer, 2008
40. Hartmann M, Hassan A. Application of real options analysis for pharmaceutical R&D project valuation: Empirical results from a survey. Res Policy 2006 Jan 1; 35: 343-54
41. Douw K, Vondeling H. Selection of new health technologies for assessment aimed at informing decision making: A survey among horizon scanning systems. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2006 Mar 31; 22 (2): 177-83
42. Holford N, Ma SC, Ploeger BA. Clinical trial simulation: A review. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2010 Jul 1; 88 (2): 166-82
43. Claxton K, Sculpher M, Drummond M. A rational framework for decision making by the National Institute For Clinical Excellence (NICE). Lancet 2002 Aug 31; 360 (9334): 711-5 (Pubitemid 35232343)
44. Chalmers I. Evaluating 'payback' on biomedical research: Biomedical funding decisions should be audited. BMJ 2000; 321 (7260): 566
45. Hanney SR, Gonzalez Block MA. Building health research systems to achieve better health. Health Res Policy Syst 2006; 4 (10): 6
46. Yazdizadeh B, Majdzadeh R, Salmasian H. Systematic review of methods for evaluating healthcare research economic impact. Health Res Policy Syst 2010 Jan 1; 8: 6
47. Reed SD, Shea AM, Schulman KA. Economic implications of potential changes to regulatory and reimbursement policies for medical devices. J Gen Intern Med 2008 Jan 1; 23 Suppl. 1: 50-6 (Pubitemid 350295389)
48. Hummel JM, van Rossum W, Verkerke GJ, et al. Medical technology assessment: The use of the analytic hierarchy process as a tool for multidisciplinary evaluation of medical devices. Int J Artif Organs 2000 Nov; 23 (11): 782-7 (Pubitemid 32010994)
49. Sloane E, Liberatore M, Nydick R, et al. Using the analytic hierarchy process as a clinical engineering tool to facilitate an iterative, multidisciplinary, microeconomic health technology assessment. Comput Oper Res 2003; 1447-65 (Pubitemid 36594849)
50. Hummel JM, IJzerman MJ. The use of the analytic hierarchy process in health care decision making. Health Sciences Series. Enschede: Health Technology & Services Research, 2009
51. Kallas Z, Lambarraa F, Gil JM. A stated preference analysis comparing the analytical hierarchy process versus choice experiments. Food Qual Pref 2011; 22 (2): 181-92
52. Mulye R. An empirical comparison of three variants of the AHP and two variants of conjoint analysis. J Behavioral Decision Making 1998; 11: 263-80
53. IJzerman MJ, Bridges JF, van Til JA. A comparison of analytical hierarchical process and conjoint analysis methods in assessing treatment alternatives for stroke rehabilitation. Patient. In press
54. Johnson FR, Mohamed AF, Ozdemir S, et al. How does cost matter in health-care discrete-choice experiments? Health Econ 2011 Apr; 20 (3): 323-30
55. Lynd LD, Najafzadeh M, Colley L, et al. Using the incremental net benefit framework for quantitative benefit-risk analysis in regulatory decision-making: A case study of alosetron in irritable bowel syndrome. Value Health 2010 Jun; 13 (4): 411-7
56. Sanders PMH, IJzerman MJ, Roach MJ, et al. Patient preferences for next generation neural prostheses to restore bladder function. Spinal Cord 2011 Jun 8; 49 (1): 113-9
57. van Til JA, Renzenbrink GJ, Groothuis K, et al. A preliminary economic evaluation of percutaneous neuromuscular electrical stimulation in the treatment of hemiplegic shoulder pain. Disabil Rehabil 2006May 30; 28 (10): 645-51 (Pubitemid 43738891)
58. Girling A, Young T, Brown C, et al. Early-stage valuation of medical devices: The role of developmental uncertainty. Value Health 2010 Aug 1; 13 (5): 585-91
59. McAteer H, Cosh E, Freeman G, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis at the development phase of a potential health technology: Examples based on tissue engineering of bladder and urethra. J Tissue Eng RegenMed 2007 Sep-Oct; 1 (5): 343-9
60. Buurman J, Zhang S, Babovic V. Reducing risk through real options in systems design: The case of architecting a maritime domain protection system. Risk Anal 2009 Mar 1; 29 (3): 366-79
61. Mun J. Real options analysis: Tools and techniques for valuing strategic investments and decisions. 2nd ed. Hoboken (NJ): John Wiley & Sons, 2006: xxxi, 667
62. Smith JE, Nau RF. Valuing risky projects: option pricing theory and decision analysis.Manage Sci 1995; 41 (5): 795-816
63. Pertile P, Torri E, Flor L, et al. The timing of adoption of positron emission tomography: A real options approach. Health Care Manag Sci 2009 Sep 1; 12 (3): 217-27
64. Attema AE, Lugnér AK, Feenstra TL. Investment in antiviral drugs: A real options approach. Health Econ 2010 Oct 1; 19 (10): 1240-54
65. Driffield T, Smith PC. A real options approach to watchful waiting: Theory and an illustration. Med Decis Making 2007 Jan 1; 27 (2): 178-88 (Pubitemid 46568907)
66. Kimko HC, Duffull SB. Simulation for designing clinical trials: A pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic modeling perspective. New York: Marcel Dekker, 2003
67. DiMasi JA, Hansen RW, Grabowski HG. The price of innovation: new estimates of drug development costs. J Health Econ 2003 Mar 1; 22 (2): 151-85 (Pubitemid 36279392)
68. De Ridder F. Predicting the outcome of phase III trials using phase II data: A case study of clinical trial simulation in late stage drug development. Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol 2005; 96 (3): 235-41 (Pubitemid 40388001)
69. Volosin KJ, Exner DV, Wathen MS, et al. Combining shock reduction strategies to enhance ICD therapy: A role for computer modeling. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol 2011 Mar; 22 (3): 280-9
70. Pibouleau L, Chevret S. Bayesian statistical method was underused despite its advantages in the assessment of implantable medical devices. J Clin Epidemiol 2011 Mar; 64 (3): 270-9
71. Retè l VP, HummelMJM, van Harten WH. Review on early technology assessments of nanotechnologies in oncology. Mol Oncol 2009 Dec 1; 3 (5-6): 394-401
72. Sculpher M, Claxton K. Establishing the cost-effectiveness of new pharmaceuticals under conditions of uncertainty: When is there sufficient evidence? Value Health 2005 Jan 1; 8 (4): 433-46
73. Claxton KP, Sculpher MJ. Using value of information analysis to prioritise health research: Some lessons from recent UK experience. Pharmacoeconomics 2006; 24 (11): 1055-68 (Pubitemid 44683363)
74. Fenwick E, Claxton K, Sculpher M. The value of implementation and the value of information: Combined and uneven development. Med Decis Making 2008 Jan 1; 28 (1): 21-32
75. Bojke L, Claxton K, Sculpher M, et al. Characterizing structural uncertainty in decision analytic models: A review and application of methods. Value Health 2008 Dec 9; 12 (5): 739-49
76. Groot Koerkamp B, Stijnen T, Weinstein MC, et al. The combined analysis of uncertainty and patient heterogeneity in medical decision models. Med Decis Making. Epub 2010 Oct 25
77. O'Hagan A, McCabe C, Akehurst R, et al. Incorporation of uncertainty in health economic modelling studies. Pharmacoeconomics 2005; 23 (6): 529-36 (Pubitemid 40994122)
78. O'Hagan A. Eliciting expert beliefs in substantial practical applications. Statistician 1998 Jan 1; 47 (1): 21-35 (Pubitemid 128469060)
79. Garthwaite PH, Kadane J, O'Hagan A. Statistical methods for eliciting probability distributions. J AmStat Assoc 2005 Jan 1; 100 (470): 680-701
80. Johnson SR, Tomlinson GA, Hawker GA, et al. Methods to elicit beliefs for Bayesian priors: A systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol 2010 Apr 1; 63 (4): 355-69
81. Johnson SR, Tomlinson GA, Hawker GA, et al. A valid and reliable belief elicitation method for Bayesian priors. J Clin Epidemiol 2010 Apr 1; 63 (4): 370-83
82. Bojke L, Claxton K, Bravo-Vergel Y, et al. Eliciting distributions to populate decision analytic models. Value Health 2010 Jul 1; 13 (5): 557-64
83. Hilgerink MP, Hummel JM, Manohar S, et al. Assessment of the added value of the Twente Photoacoustic Mammoscope in breast cancer diagnosis. Med Devices Evid Res 2011; 4: 107-15
84. Steuten LMG, Hummel JM, Groothuis-Oudshoorn CGB, et al. Using AHP weights to fill missing gaps in Markov decision models. Value Health 2010; 13 (7): A241
85. Martino J. A review of selected recent advances in technological forecasting. Technol Forecast Soc Change 2003 Jan 1; 70: 719-33 (Pubitemid 37042406)
86. Huang L, Guo Y, Porter AL. A systematic technology forecasting approach for new and emerging science and technology: Case study of nano-enhanced biosensors. Atlanta Conference on Science Innovation Policy; 2009 Oct 2-3; Atlanta (GA)
87. Bridges JF, Buttorff C. What outcomes should US policy makers compare in comparative effectiveness research? Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 2010 Jun; 10 (3): 217-20
88. Facey K, Boivin A, Gracia J, et al. Patients' perspectives in health technology assessment: A route to robust evidence and fair deliberation. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2010 Jul; 26 (3): 334-40
89. Brazier J, Akehurst R, Brennan A, et al. Should patients have a greater role in valuing health states? Appl Health Econ Health Policy 2005 Jan 1; 4 (4): 201-8
90. Gezondheidsraad. Medical products: new and needed! An investment strategy for research into innovative and relevant medical products. The Hague: Health Council of the Netherlands, 2011. Publication no. 2011/01
91. Lettl C, Herstatt C, Gemuenden HG. Users' contributions to radical innovation: Evidence from four cases in the field of medical equipment technology. R&D Manage 2006 Jan 1; 36 (3): 251-72 (Pubitemid 43824123)
92. Snoek GJ, van Til JA, Krabbe PF, et al. Decision for reconstructive interventions of the upper limb in individuals with tetraplegia: The effect of treatment characteristics. Spinal Cord 2008 Mar; 46 (3): 228-33 (Pubitemid 351347931)
93. Lloyd A, Swinburn P, Boye KS, et al. A valuation of infusion therapy to preserve islet function in type 1 diabetes. Value Health 2010 Aug 1; 13 (5): 636-42