Applying early health technology assessment (e-HTA) to inform investment in novel health technologies in the US.

IF 3.1 4区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Zizi Elsisi, William Canestaro, L Steuten, Ryan Hansen
{"title":"Applying early health technology assessment (e-HTA) to inform investment in novel health technologies in the US.","authors":"Zizi Elsisi, William Canestaro, L Steuten, Ryan Hansen","doi":"10.1017/S0266462325100275","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Evaluate how a foundation-supported fellowship employs early health-technology assessment (eHTA) to guide the development and positioning of emerging health innovations.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We reviewed all eHTA reports conducted under the Fellowship from 2018 to 2021 (<i>n</i> = 10), extracting technology class, development stage, economic modeling, and recommendations. In 2023, we conducted thirty-minute structured video interviews with developers of each technology (eleven invitees, ten responses). The interview comprised Likert questions on perceived usefulness and intention to update the model in later stages, and six open-ended questions on perceived advantages, implementation barriers, and downstream actions. Likert data were summarized descriptively; open-ended responses were summarized and discussed within the research team until consensus on key themes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The eHTA subject technologies were four diagnostics, three therapeutics, two predictive algorithms, and one curative device, all preclinical. Analyses used six Markov or decision-tree frameworks, four hybrid models or simulations, and six value-based-pricing scenarios. Five technologies were potentially cost-effective, three conditionally cost-effective, one unlikely to be cost-effective without stronger evidence, and one cost-effective yet unlikely to break even. Eight developers rated eHTA \"useful\" or \"very useful\"; three had already leveraged results in grant or investor materials and two planned to do so when more data emerged. Reported barriers included evidence gaps, funding constraints, and misalignment with pharmaceutical partners on codevelopment strategies; two projects were discontinued.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>eHTA supplies developers with early economic insight, but its guidance is most reliable when interpreted alongside budget impact, feasibility, regulatory, and adoption considerations.</p>","PeriodicalId":14467,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care","volume":" ","pages":"e45"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12303690/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266462325100275","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: Evaluate how a foundation-supported fellowship employs early health-technology assessment (eHTA) to guide the development and positioning of emerging health innovations.

Methods: We reviewed all eHTA reports conducted under the Fellowship from 2018 to 2021 (n = 10), extracting technology class, development stage, economic modeling, and recommendations. In 2023, we conducted thirty-minute structured video interviews with developers of each technology (eleven invitees, ten responses). The interview comprised Likert questions on perceived usefulness and intention to update the model in later stages, and six open-ended questions on perceived advantages, implementation barriers, and downstream actions. Likert data were summarized descriptively; open-ended responses were summarized and discussed within the research team until consensus on key themes.

Results: The eHTA subject technologies were four diagnostics, three therapeutics, two predictive algorithms, and one curative device, all preclinical. Analyses used six Markov or decision-tree frameworks, four hybrid models or simulations, and six value-based-pricing scenarios. Five technologies were potentially cost-effective, three conditionally cost-effective, one unlikely to be cost-effective without stronger evidence, and one cost-effective yet unlikely to break even. Eight developers rated eHTA "useful" or "very useful"; three had already leveraged results in grant or investor materials and two planned to do so when more data emerged. Reported barriers included evidence gaps, funding constraints, and misalignment with pharmaceutical partners on codevelopment strategies; two projects were discontinued.

Conclusions: eHTA supplies developers with early economic insight, but its guidance is most reliable when interpreted alongside budget impact, feasibility, regulatory, and adoption considerations.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

在美国应用早期健康技术评估(e-HTA)为新健康技术的投资提供信息。
目的:评估基金会支持的奖学金如何采用早期卫生技术评估(eHTA)来指导新兴卫生创新的发展和定位。方法:我们回顾了2018年至2021年在该奖学金下进行的所有eHTA报告(n = 10),提取了技术类别、发展阶段、经济建模和建议。2023年,我们对每种技术的开发人员进行了30分钟的结构化视频采访(11位受邀者,10位回应者)。访谈包括关于感知有用性和在后期更新模型的意图的李克特问题,以及关于感知优势、实施障碍和下游行动的六个开放式问题。李克特数据进行描述性总结;在研究小组内总结和讨论开放式答复,直至就关键主题达成共识。结果:eHTA受试者技术为4种诊断技术、3种治疗技术、2种预测算法和1种治疗装置,均为临床前技术。分析使用了六个马尔可夫或决策树框架,四个混合模型或模拟,以及六个基于价值的定价方案。5项技术具有潜在的成本效益,3项有条件地具有成本效益,1项在没有更有力证据的情况下不太可能具有成本效益,1项具有成本效益但不太可能实现收支平衡。8名开发者认为eHTA“有用”或“非常有用”;其中三家已经在赠款或投资者材料中利用了结果,两家计划在更多数据出现时这样做。报告的障碍包括证据不足、资金限制以及与制药合作伙伴在共同开发战略上的不一致;停止了两个项目。结论:eHTA为开发商提供了早期的经济洞察力,但当与预算影响、可行性、监管和采用考虑因素一起解释时,其指导是最可靠的。
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
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
15.60%
发文量
116
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care serves as a forum for the wide range of health policy makers and professionals interested in the economic, social, ethical, medical and public health implications of health technology. It covers the development, evaluation, diffusion and use of health technology, as well as its impact on the organization and management of health care systems and public health. In addition to general essays and research reports, regular columns on technology assessment reports and thematic sections are published.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信