A Review of the Economic Tools for Assessing New Medical Devices

Applied Health Economics and Health Policy

Volumn 13, Issue 1, 2015, Pages 15-27

  Craig, Joyce A ^a   Carr, Louise ^a   Hutton, John ^b   Glanville, Julie ^a   Iglesias, Cynthia P ^b   Sims, Andrew J ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF YORK   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF YORK   (United Kingdom)

^c NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE HOSPITALS NHS FOUNDATION TRUST   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DEVICES; ECONOMICS; EUROPE; HUMAN; THEORETICAL MODEL;

COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLIES; EUROPE; HUMANS; MODELS, THEORETICAL; TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, BIOMEDICAL;

EID: 84939878780     PISSN: 11755652     EISSN: 11791896     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s40258-014-0123-8     Document Type: Review

References (90)

1. U. S. Food Drug Administration. Medical devices: is the product a medical device? U. S. Food Drug Administration, Maryland. 2013. www.fda.gov/medicaldevices/deviceregulationandguidance/overview/classifyyourdevice/ucm051512.htm. Accessed 2 April 2014.
2. MedTech Europe. The European Medical Technology Industry in figures. Brussels: MedTech Europe; 2013.
3. Udvarhelyi IS, Colditz GA, Rai A, Epstein AM. Cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit analyses in the medical literature. Are the methods being used correctly? Ann Intern Med. 1992;116:238–44.
4. Cookson R, Hutton J. Regulating the economic evaluation of pharmaceuticals and medical devices: a European perspective. Health Policy. 2003;63:167–78.
5. National Institute for Health Care Excellence. Medical technologies evaluation programme. London: NICE; 2013.
6. French-Mowat E, Burnett J. How are medical devices regulated in the European Union? J R Soc Med. 2012;105(Suppl 1):S22–8.
7. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Medical technologies evaluation programme: methods guide. London: NICE; 2011.
8. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. 1999–2009 a decade of excellence. London: NICE; 2009.
9. Taylor RS, Iglesias CP. Assessing the clinical and cost-effectiveness of medical devices and drugs: are they that different? Value Health. 2009;12:404–6.
10. Drummond M, Griffin A, Tarricone R. Economic evaluation for devices and drugs—same or different? Value Health. 2009;12:402–4.
11. Sorenson C, Tarricone R, Siebert M, Drummond M. Applying health economics for policy decision making: do devices differ from drugs? Europace. 2011;13(Suppl 2):54–8.
12. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Medical technology evaluation programme: definition of technologies which fall within the remit of the programme. London: NICE; 2013.
13. Medical Services Advisory Committee. Funding for new medical technologies and procedures: application and assessment guidelines. Canberra: Medical Services Advisory Committee; 2005.
14. Medical Services Advisory Committee. Guidelines for the assessment of diagnostic technologies. Canberra: Medical Services Advisory Committee; 2005.
15. Medical Services Advisory Committee. Economics section of the MSAC guidelines. Canberra: Medical Services Advisory Committee; 2009.
16. Canadian Agency for Drugs Technologies in Health. Guidelines for the economic evaluation of health technologies: Canada. Ottowa: CADTH; 2006.
17. Canadian Agency for Drugs Technologies in Health. Indirect evidence: indirect treatment comparisons in meta-analysis. Ottowa: CADTH; 2009.
18. Haute Autorité de Santé. Rapid assessment method for assessing medical and surgical procedures. Paris: Haute Autorité de Santé; 2007.
19. Haute Autorité de Santé. General method for assessing health technologies. Paris: Haute Autorité de Santé; 2007.
20. Haute Autorité de Santé. Medical device assessment in France: guidebook. Paris: Haute Autorité de Santé; 2009.
21. Kristensen F, He S. Health technology assessment handbook. Copenhagen: Danish Centre for Health Technology Assessment, National Board of Health; 2007.
22. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Published medical technologies guidance. NICE, London. 2014. http://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/mt/published/index.jsp. Accessed 5 Jan 2014.
23. Ferrusi IL, Ames D, Lim ME, Goeree R. Health technology assessment from a Canadian device industry perspective. J Am Coll Radiol. 2009;6:353–9.
24. Foley K, Lim S, Schulman KL. Methodological considerations in modeling the economic value of diagnostic accuracy. In: ISPOR 16th Annual International Meeting; Baltimore; 21–25 May 2011.
25. Gimenes F, de O Machado F, Quiroz ME. Health technology assessment applied to medical devices in Latin America: what must be assessed. In: ISPOR 3rd Latin America Conference; Mexico City; 8–10 September 2011.
26. Hutton J, Trueman P, Henshall C. Coverage with evidence development: an examination of conceptual and policy issues. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2007;23:425–32.
27. Manca A. Economic evaluation of medical devices and drugs—same or different? Value Health. 2009;12(4):401.
28. Tesar T, Babela R. Quality assurance of fourth hurdle concerning medical devices. In: ISPOR 13th Annual European Congress; Prague; 6–9 November 2010.
29. Drummond M, Weatherly H, Ferguson B. Economic evaluation of health interventions. BMJ. 2008;337:a1204.
30. Ho PM, Peterson PN, Masoudi FA. Evaluating the evidence: is there a rigid hierarchy? Circulation. 2008;118:1675–84.
31. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal 2013. London: NICE; 2013.
32. Sassi F, McKee M, Roberts JA. Economic evaluation of diagnostic technology. Methodological challenges and viable solutions. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1998;13:613–30.
33. Poley MJ, Edelenbos KI, Mosseveld M, van Wijk MA, de Bakker DH, van der Lei J, et al. Cost consequences of implementing an electronic decision support system for ordering laboratory tests in primary care: evidence from a controlled prospective study in the Netherlands. Clin Chem. 2006;53:213–9.
34. Cole JH, Chunn VM, Morrow JA, Buckley RS, Phillips GM. Cost implications of initial computed tomography angiography as opposed to catheterization in patients with mildly abnormal or equivocal myocardial perfusion scans. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 2007;1:21–6.
35. Rihal CS, Ryan JL, Singh M, Lennon RJ, Bresnahan JF, Liesinger JT, et al. Clinical and economic outcomes after introduction of drug-eluting stents. Am J Manag Care. 2010;16:580–7.
36. Clegg JP, Guest JF. Modelling the cost-utility of bio-electric stimulation therapy compared to standard care in the treatment of elderly patients with chronic non-healing wounds in the UK. Curr Med Res Opin. 2007;23:871–83.
37. Regier DA, Petrou S, Henderson J, Eddama O, Patel N, Strohm B, et al. Cost-effectiveness of therapeutic hypothermia to treat neonatal encephalopathy. Value Health. 2010;13:695–702.
38. Palmer AJ, Valentine WJ, Chen R, Mehin N, Gabriel S, Bregman B, et al. A health economic analysis of screening and optimal treatment of nephropathy in patients with type 2 diabetes and hypertension in the USA. Nephrol Dial Transpl. 2008;23:1216–23.
39. Watkins RG, Gupta A, Watkins RG. Cost-effectiveness of image-guided spine surgery. Open Orthop J. 2011;4:228–33.
40. Department of Health. Reference costs 2005–06. London: Department of Health; 2006.
41. Remak E, Manson S, Hutton J, Brasseur P, Olivier E, Gershlick A. Cost-effectiveness of the Endeavor stent in de novo native coronary artery lesions updated with contemporary data. EuroIntervention. 2010;5(7):826–32.
42. Bradley SM, Levy WC, Veenstra DL. Cost-consequences of ultrafiltration for acute heart failure: a decision model analysis. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2009;2:566–73.
43. Krug B, Van Zanten A, Pirson AS, Crott R, Borght TV. Activity-based costing evaluation of a [(18)F]-fludeoxyglucose positron emission tomography study. Health Policy. 2009;92:234–43.
44. Tarricone R, Aguzzi G, Musi F, Fariselli L, Casasco A. Cost-effectiveness analysis for trigeminal neuralgia: cyberknife vs microvascular decompression. Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat. 2008;4:647–52.
45. Lowrance WT, Tarin TV, Shariat SF. Evidence-based comparison of robotic and open radical prostatectomy. Sci World J. 2010;10:2228–37.
46. Meads CA, Cnossen JS, Meher S, Juarez-Garcia A, ter Riet G, Duley L, et al. Methods of prediction and prevention of pre-eclampsia: systematic reviews of accuracy and effectiveness literature with economic modelling. Health Technol Assess. 2008;12:1–270.
47. Mueller D, Gandjour A. Cost-effectiveness of using clinical risk factors with and without DXA for osteoporosis screening in postmenopausal women. Value Health. 2009;12:1106–17.
48. O’Connor DP, Knoblauch MA. Electrocardiogram testing during athletic preparticipation physical examinations. J Athl Train. 2010;45:265–72.
49. Collins R, Cranny G, Burch J, Aguiar-Ibanez R, Craig D, Wright K, et al. A systematic review of duplex ultrasound, magnetic resonance angiography and computed tomography angiography for the diagnosis and assessment of symptomatic, lower limb peripheral arterial disease. Health Technol Assess. 2007;11:1–184.
50. Wordsworth S, Buchanan J, Regan R, Davison V, Smith K, Dyer S, et al. Diagnosing idiopathic learning disability: a cost-effectiveness analysis of microarray technology in the National Health Service of the United Kingdom. Genomic Med. 2008;1:35–45.
51. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. The EOS 2D/3D imaging system (NICE diagnostic guidance 1). London: NICE; 2011.
52. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Elucigene FH20 and LIPOchip for the diagnosis of familial hypercholesterolaemia (NICE diagnostic guidance 2). London: NICE; 2011.
53. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. New generation cardiac CT scanners (Aquilion ONE, Brilliance iCT, Discovery CT750 HD and Somatom Definition Flash) for cardiac imaging in people with suspected or known coronary artery disease in whom imaging is difficult with earlier generation CT scanners (NICE diagnostic guidance 3). London: NICE; 2012.
54. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. SeQuent please balloon catheter for in-stent coronary restenosis (NICE medical technology guidance 1). London: NICE; 2010.
55. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. moorLDI2-BI: a laser doppler blood flow imager for burn wound assessment (NICE medical technology guidance 2). London: NICE; 2011.
56. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. CardioQ-ODM oesophageal Doppler monitor (NICE medical technology guidance 3). London: NICE; 2011.
57. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. BRAHMS copeptin assay to rule out myocardial infarction in patients with acute chest pain (NICE medical technology guidance 4). London: NICE; 2011.
58. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. MIST therapy system for the promotion of wound healing in chronic and acute wounds (NICE medical technology guidance 5). London: NICE; 2011.
59. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Ambulight PDT for the treatment of non-melanoma skin cancer (NICE medical technology guidance 6). London: NICE; 2011.
60. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Inditherm patient warming mattress for the prevention of inadvertent hypothermia (NICE medical technology guidance 7). London: NICE; 2011.
61. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. The VeriQ system for assessing graft flow during coronary artery bypass graft surgery (NICE medical technology guidance 8). London: NICE; 2011.
62. Claxton K. Bayesian approaches to the value of information: implications for the regulation of new pharmaceuticals. Health Econ. 1999;8:269–74.
63. Henshall C, Mardhani-Bayne L, Fronsdal KB, Klemp M. Interactions between health technology assessment, coverage, and regulatory processes: emerging issues, goals, and opportunities. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2011;27:253–60.
64. Mauskopf JA, Paul JE, Grant DM, Stergachis A. The role of cost-consequence analysis in healthcare decision-making. Pharmacoeconomics. 1998;13:277–88.
65. Schreyogg J, Baumler M, Busse R. Balancing adoption and affordability of medical devices in Europe. Health Policy. 2009;92:218–24.
66. Bonangelino P, Irony T, Liang S, Li X, Mukhi V, Ruan S, et al. Bayesian approaches in medical device clinical trials: a discussion with examples in the regulatory setting. J Biopharm Stat. 2011;21:938–53.
67. Campbell G. Bayesian statistics in medical devices: innovation sparked by the FDA. J Biopharm Stat. 2011;21:871–87.
68. Grunkemeier GL, Payne N. Bayesian analysis: a new statistical paradigm for new technology. Ann Thorac Surg. 2003;74:1901–8.
69. Hobbs BP, Carlin BP. Practical Bayesian design and analysis for drug and device clinical trials. J Biopharm Stat. 2007;18:54–80.
70. US Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for the use of Bayesian statistics in medical device clinical trials. Maryland: US Food and Drug Administration; 2010.
71. Ades AE, Sutton AJ. Multiparameter evidence synthesis in epidemiology and medical decision-making: current approaches. J R Stat Soc Ser A (Statistics in Society). 2006;169:5–35.
72. Armero C, Garcia-Donato G, Lopez-Quilez A. Bayesian methods in cost-effectiveness studies: objectivity, computation and other relevant aspects. Health Econ. 2009;19:629–43.
73. Claxton K. The irrelevance of inference: a decision-making approach to the stochastic evaluation of health care technologies. J Health Econ. 1999;18:341–64.
74. Haro JM, Kontodimas S, Negrin MA, Ratcliffe M, Suarez D, Windmeijer F. Methodological aspects in the assessment of treatment effects in observational health outcomes studies. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2006;5:11–25.
75. Healthcare Improvement Scotland. Coverage with evidence development in NHS Scotland. Edinburgh: Healthcare Improvement Scotland; 2008.
76. Pietzsch JB, Pate-Cornell ME. Early technology assessment of new medical devices. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2008;24:36–44.
77. Spiegelhalter DJ, Myles JP, Jones DR, Abrams KR. Bayesian methods in health technology assessment: a review. Health Technol Assess. 2001;4:1–130.
78. Cook JA, Ramsay CR, Fayers P. Using the literature to quantify the learning curve: a case study. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2007;23:255–60.
79. Douma KF, Karsenberg K, Hummel MJ, Bueno-de-Mesquita JM, van Harten WH. Methodology of constructive technology assessment in health care. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2007;23:162–8.
80. Martin JL, Clark DJ, Morgan SP, Crowe JA, Murphy E. A user-centred approach to requirements elicitation in medical device development: a case study from an industry perspective. Appl Ergon. 2011;43:184–90.
81. Mushlin AI, Kern LM, Paris M, Lambert DR, Williams G. The value of diagnostic information to patients with chest pain suggestive of coronary artery disease. Med Decis Making. 2005;25:149–57.
82. National Institute for Health Clinical and Excellence. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation for aortic stenosis (NICE interventional procedures guidance 421). London: NICE; 2012.
83. Girling A, Young T, Brown C, Lilford R. Early-stage valuation of medical devices: the role of developmental uncertainty. Value Health. 2010;13(5):585–91.
84. McAteer H, Cosh E, Freeman G, Pandit G, Wood P, Lilford R. Cost-effectiveness analysis at the development phase of a potential health technology: examples based on tissue engineering of bladder and urethra. J Tissue Eng Regen Med. 2007;1:343–9.
85. Ijzerman MJ, Steuten LMG. Early assessment of medical technologies to inform product development and market access: a review of methods and applications. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2011;9(5):331–47.
86. 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;24(4):465–72.
87. Vallejo-Torres L, Steuten LMG, Buxton MJ, Girling AJ, Lilford RJ, Young T. Integrating health economics modeling in the product development cycle of medical devices: a Bayesian approach. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2008;24(4):459–64.
88. Mushlin AI, Kern LM, Paris M, Lambert DR, Williams G. The value of diagnostic information to patients with chest pain suggestive of coronary artery disease. Med Decis Making. 2005;25(2):149–57.
89. Chapman AM, Taylor CA, Girling AJ. Are the UK systems of innovation and evaluation of medical devices compatible? The role of NICE’s medical technologies evaluation programme (MTEP). Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2014;12(4):347–57.
90. Kirisits A, Redekop WK. The economic evaluation of medical devices: challenges ahead. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2013;11(1):15–26. doi:10.1007/s40258-012-0006-9.