Evaluation of HTA Frameworks for In Vivo Diagnostics: Assessing Methodological Gaps and Implications for Market Access.

IF 4.9 2区 医学 Q1 ECONOMICS
Ricardo De la Fuente, Hermilo A Cabra Gomez, Shivani K Shah, Chad Gibson, Regina C Munter-Young
{"title":"Evaluation of HTA Frameworks for In Vivo Diagnostics: Assessing Methodological Gaps and Implications for Market Access.","authors":"Ricardo De la Fuente, Hermilo A Cabra Gomez, Shivani K Shah, Chad Gibson, Regina C Munter-Young","doi":"10.1016/j.jval.2025.05.001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This study investigates the evaluation of in vivo diagnostics, particularly molecular imaging (MI) tracers and contrast media (CM), within health technology assessment (HTA) frameworks across 28 countries. The aim is to identify variations in HTA methodologies and highlight gaps in the evaluation of diagnostics, focusing on market access and reimbursement.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Guidance documents from Ministry of Health, national insurers, and HTA organizations were reviewed to assess roles and methodologies for evaluating In vitro diagnostics (IVDs), pharmaceuticals, and in vivo diagnostics. HTA organizations were grouped into five categories based on assessment processes and legal influence. A mapping methodology created regulatory-to-reimbursement process maps, resulting in two taxonomies. Representative countries from each group were analyzed for evidence requirements for MI tracers and CM. Five published HTA case studies were used to validate findings and evaluate the impact of HTA decisions on coverage and reimbursement.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The study found that IVDs were universally evaluated as medical technologies, while MI tracers and CM were often evaluated as pharmaceuticals, with diagnostic modalities considered separately. HTA frameworks in 11 countries were analyzed, revealing variation in how evidence requirements were defined. Case studies revealed discrepancies in reimbursement decisions despite similar clinical evidence, highlighting inconsistencies in HTA methodologies.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study identifies gaps in HTA frameworks for evaluating in vivo diagnostics, including reliance on pharmaceutical-centric models, lack of standardization, and inconsistent methodologies across markets. These gaps pose barriers to access and reimbursement for MI tracers and CM, emphasizing the need for methodologies tailored specifically to in vivo diagnostics.</p>","PeriodicalId":23508,"journal":{"name":"Value in Health","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Value in Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2025.05.001","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: This study investigates the evaluation of in vivo diagnostics, particularly molecular imaging (MI) tracers and contrast media (CM), within health technology assessment (HTA) frameworks across 28 countries. The aim is to identify variations in HTA methodologies and highlight gaps in the evaluation of diagnostics, focusing on market access and reimbursement.

Methods: Guidance documents from Ministry of Health, national insurers, and HTA organizations were reviewed to assess roles and methodologies for evaluating In vitro diagnostics (IVDs), pharmaceuticals, and in vivo diagnostics. HTA organizations were grouped into five categories based on assessment processes and legal influence. A mapping methodology created regulatory-to-reimbursement process maps, resulting in two taxonomies. Representative countries from each group were analyzed for evidence requirements for MI tracers and CM. Five published HTA case studies were used to validate findings and evaluate the impact of HTA decisions on coverage and reimbursement.

Results: The study found that IVDs were universally evaluated as medical technologies, while MI tracers and CM were often evaluated as pharmaceuticals, with diagnostic modalities considered separately. HTA frameworks in 11 countries were analyzed, revealing variation in how evidence requirements were defined. Case studies revealed discrepancies in reimbursement decisions despite similar clinical evidence, highlighting inconsistencies in HTA methodologies.

Conclusion: This study identifies gaps in HTA frameworks for evaluating in vivo diagnostics, including reliance on pharmaceutical-centric models, lack of standardization, and inconsistent methodologies across markets. These gaps pose barriers to access and reimbursement for MI tracers and CM, emphasizing the need for methodologies tailored specifically to in vivo diagnostics.

评估体内诊断的HTA框架:评估方法差距和对市场准入的影响。
目的:本研究调查了在28个国家的卫生技术评估(HTA)框架内对体内诊断的评估,特别是分子成像(MI)示踪剂和造影剂(CM)。其目的是确定卫生评价方法的差异,并突出诊断评价方面的差距,重点放在市场准入和报销方面。方法:审查卫生部、国家保险公司和HTA组织的指导文件,以评估体外诊断(IVDs)、药物和体内诊断的作用和方法。根据评估程序和法律影响,将人道主义协会组织分为五类。映射方法创建了监管到报销流程映射,从而产生两种分类法。分析了每个组的代表性国家对心肌梗死示踪剂和CM的证据要求。五个已发表的HTA案例研究被用来验证研究结果,并评估HTA决策对覆盖和报销的影响。结果:研究发现,ivd被普遍评价为医疗技术,而心肌梗死示踪剂和CM通常被评价为药物,诊断方式单独考虑。对11个国家的HTA框架进行了分析,揭示了在如何定义证据要求方面的差异。案例研究显示,尽管有类似的临床证据,但在报销决策方面存在差异,突出了HTA方法的不一致性。结论:本研究确定了评估体内诊断的HTA框架的差距,包括依赖于以药物为中心的模型,缺乏标准化,以及不同市场的方法不一致。这些差距对心肌梗死示踪剂和CM的获取和报销构成障碍,强调需要专门针对体内诊断的方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Value in Health
Value in Health 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
6.90
自引率
6.70%
发文量
3064
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Value in Health contains original research articles for pharmacoeconomics, health economics, and outcomes research (clinical, economic, and patient-reported outcomes/preference-based research), as well as conceptual and health policy articles that provide valuable information for health care decision-makers as well as the research community. As the official journal of ISPOR, Value in Health provides a forum for researchers, as well as health care decision-makers to translate outcomes research into health care decisions.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信