Comparison of Published Rapid Health Technology Assessments (HTA): A Cross-Sectional Analysis of an International Database

Speaker(s)

McLaughlin S1, Abeer A1, Sharp MK1, Walsh KA2, Nemzoff C3, Foley S4, Clifton E5, Flood M6, Spillane S7, Harrington P7, Teljeur C7, O'Neill M7, Smith S8, Ryan M7, Clyne B1
1RCSI University of Medicine and Health Sciences, Dublin, Ireland, 2Health Information and Quality Authority (HIQA) & School of Pharmacy, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland, 3Department of Global Health and Development, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, England, UK, 4Public and Patient Representative, Dublin, Ireland, 5Scottish Health Technologies Group, Glasgow, Scotland, UK, 6RCSI University of Medicine and Health Sciences, Dublin, & PPI Ignite Network,University of Galway, Galway, Ireland, 7Health Information and Quality Authority (HIQA), Dublin, Ireland, 8Discipline of Public Health and Primary Care, School of Medicine, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland

Presentation Documents

OBJECTIVES: In response to growing demand for Health Technology Assessments (HTA) to inform decision making, rapid HTAs (rHTA) are increasingly being produced. However, there is little international consensus or guidance on how rHTAs should be conducted.

In lieu of these standards, we are conducting a cross-sectional analysis to compare and contrast different rHTA products indexed on the International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment (INAHTA) database, mapping their methodology and content.

METHODS: Products indexed as “rapid” or “mini” on the INAHTA database (a network of 55 HTA agencies) from 2014 upwards were eligible for inclusion. A supplementary search of agencies identified by our expert steering committee will also be conducted. We will extract descriptive data on the agency (e.g. name, country), HTA topic, stakeholder engagement processes, and which of the nine HTA core model domains are included/omitted/simplified. Analyses will be conducted in Stata and summarized descriptively. Final analyses will be completed by the time of presentation.

RESULTS: Currently, we have extracted data on 136 reports, with 182 excluded. Preliminary analysis indicates variability in rHTA steps, methods, and stakeholder engagement across countries. The most commonly included domains are clinical and cost-effectiveness, predominantly presenting as literature/ systematic reviews. De novo cost effectiveness analyses or budget impact analyses are less common than reviews within reports. The organizational, ethical, legal, and patient/ social aspects domains are typically reported less frequently. Stakeholder engagement processes differ substantially; many agencies report advisory group methods and patient engagement, whereas others omit it entirely or provide little detail.

CONCLUSIONS: Preliminary findings from this cross-sectional analysis highlights key similarities and differences across agencies internationally in terms of what constitutes a rHTA. This analysis will contribute to wider research aiming to establish a clearer definition and framework for rHTAs and inform when and how rHTAs are conducted.

Code

HTA318

Topic

Health Technology Assessment

Topic Subcategory

Decision & Deliberative Processes, Systems & Structure

Disease

No Additional Disease & Conditions/Specialized Treatment Areas