Advertisement

Regaining Health Technology Assessment from Oblivion: Improving and Integrating Regulation of Drugs, Medical Devices, Diagnostic Tests and Surgical Innovations

  • Carlos Campillo-ArteroEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

Is there a broad, all-encompassing structure that meets the regulatory needs of medical innovations? This chapter will try to make the case that the answer is indisputably no, and provide some groundwork for improving and integrating regulation of drugs, devices, diagnostics and surgical innovations.

Keywords

European Union Medical Device Health Technology Assessment Surgical Innovation Government Accountability Office 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Eichler HG, Bloechl-Daum B, Brasseur D, Breckendridge H, Leufkers H, Raine J, et al. The risks of risk aversion in drug regulation. Nature Revs Drug Discover. 2013;12:907-15.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bauer P, Köning F. The risks of methodology aversion in drug regulation. Nature Revs Drug Discover. 2014;13:317-8.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Guo JJ, Pandey S, Doyle J, Bian B, Lis Y, Raisch DW. A review of quantitative benefit-risk methodology project for assessing drug safety and efficacy-report of the ISPOR risk-benefit management working group. Value Health. 2010;13:657-66.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    European Medicines Agency (EMA). Benefit-risk methodology project. Work package 5 report: field tests. 2001. Available at: http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/enGB/documentlibrary/Report/2011/09/WC500112088.pdf.
  5. 5.
    Mestre-Ferrándiz J, Deverka P, Pistollato M, Rosenberg E. The current drug development paradigm: Responding to US and European demands for evidence of comparative effectiveness and relative effectiveness. London: Office of Health Economics; 2014.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, Centre for Health Technology Evaluation. Value based assessment of health technologies. London: NICE; 2014.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Van de Watering EJ, Stolk EA, van Exel NJA, Brouwer WBF. Balancing equity and efficiency in the Dutch basic benefits package using the principle of proportional shortfall. Eur J Health Econ. 2013;14:107-15.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cohen D, Billingsley M. Europeans are left to their own devices. Br Med J. 2011;342:d2748 Available at: http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.d2748.pdf%2Bhtml.
  9. 9.
    McCulloch P. The EU’s system for regulating medical devices. Br Med J. 2012;345:e7126 Available at: http://www.bmj.com/content/345/bmj.e7126.pdf%2Bhtml.
  10. 10.
    Coombes R. Europe’s plan to tighten regulation of devices will not reach US standards. Br Med J. 2012;345:e6303. Available at: http://www.bmj.com/content/345/bmj.e6303.pdf%2Bhtml.
  11. 11.
    Plum J, Campbell B, Lyratzopoulos G. How guidance on the use of interventional procedures is produced in different countries: An international survey. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25:124-33.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Barkun JS, Aronson JK, Feldman LS, Maddern GJ, Strasberg SM, for the Balliol Collaboration. Surgical innovation and evaluation 1. Lancet. 2009;374:1089-96.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Banta D. Dissemination of Health Technology Assessment. In: del Llano-Senarís J. Campillo-Artero C, dir. Health technology assessment and health policy today: a multifaceted view of their unstable crossroads. Barcelona: Springer Healthcare; 2014:147-56.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Viscusi WK, Vernon JM, Harrington JE. Economics of regulation and antitrust. Boston: MIT Press; 1995.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Institute of Medicine. Public health effectiveness of the FDA 510(k) clearance process: measuring postmarket performance and other selected topics: workshop report. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2010.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Institute of Medicine. Public health effectiveness of the FDA 510(k) clearance process: balancing patient safety and innovation: workshop report. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2010.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Institute of Medicine. Medical devices and the public’s health. The FDA 510(k) clearance process at 35 years. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2011.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kmietowocz Z, Cohen D. Device licensing bodies sometimes put business before safety, and investigation finds. Br Med J. 2012;345:e7138.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Challoner DR, Vodra WW. Medical devices and health—creating a new regulatory framework for moderate-risk devices. New Engl J Med. 2011;365:977-9.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kramer DB, Xu S, Kesselheim AS. Regulation of medical devices in the United States and European Union. New Engl J Med. 2012;366:848-55.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Curfman GD, Redberg EF. Medical devices—balancing regulation and innovation. New Engl J Med. 2011;365:975-7.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Campillo-Artero C. A full-fledged overhaul is needed for a risk and value-based regulation of medical devices in Europe. Health Pol. 2013;113:38-44.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Fox DM, Zuckerman DM. Regulatory reticence and medical devices. The Milbank Quarterly. 2014;92:151-9.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sorenson C, Drummond M. Improving medical device regulation: The United States and Europe in perspective. The Milbank Quarterly. 2014;92:114-50.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    The Commission of the European communities. Council Directive 93/42/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning medical devices. Available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu.
  26. 26.
    Wilmshurst P. The regulation of medical devices. Unsatisfactory, unscientific, and in need of a major overhaul. Br Med J. 2011;342:d2822. Available at: http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj. d2822.
  27. 27.
    US Government Accountability Office. Testimony before the special committee on aging, U.S. Senate. Medical devices. FDAs premarket review and postmarket safety efforts. Washington, DC: GAO; 2011.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Fraser AG, Krucoff MW, Brindis RG, Komajda M, Smith Jr SC. Commentary: International collaboration needed on device clinical standards. Br Med J. 2011;342:d2952.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Cohen D. EU approval system leaves door open for dangerous devices. Br Med J. 2012;345:e7173.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    European Commission. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Safe, effective and innovative medical devices and in vitro diagnostic medical devices for the benefit of patients, consumers and healthcare professionals. COM(2012) 540 final; 2012.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Resnic FS, Normad SL. Postmarketing surveillance of medical devices – filling in the gaps. New Engl J Med. 2012;365:875-7.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Henegan C, Thompson M, Billingsley M, Cohen D. Medical device recalls in the UK and the device-regulation process: retrospective review of safety notices and alerts. Br Med J Open. 2011;1:e000155.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Horton R. Offline: a serious regulatory failure, with urgent implications. Lancet. 2012;379:106.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Helfand M. Web exclusive White paper series on diagnostic test evaluation. Med Dec Making. 2009;29:634-5.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Lord SJ, Irwig L, Bossuyt PMM. Using the principles of randomized controlled trial design to guide test evaluation. Med Dec Making. 2009;29:E1-E12.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Lijmer JG, Leeflang M, Bossuyt PMM. Proposals for a phased evaluation of medical tests. Med Dec Making. 2009;29:E13-E21.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Annes JP, Giovanni MA, Murray MF. Risks of presymptomatic Direct-to-consumer genetic testing. N Engl J Med. 2011;363:1100-1.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Lumbreras B, Parker LA, Porta M, Pollán M, Ioannidis JPA, Hernández-Aguado I. Overinterpretation of clinical applicability in molecular diagnostic research. Clin Chem. 2009;55:786-94.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Korf BR, Rehm HL. New approaches to molecular diagnosis. JAMA. 2013;309:1511-21.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Institute of Medicine. Genome-based diagnostics: Clarifying pathways to clinical use: Workshop Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2012.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, Gatsonis CA, Glasziou PP, Irwig LM, et al. The STARD Statement for reporting studies of diagnostic accuracy: Explanation and elaboration. Clin Chem. 2003;49:7-18.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Whiting P, Rutjes AWS, Reitsma JB, Bossuyt PM, Kleijnen J. The development of QUADAS: a tool for the quality assessment of studies of accuracy included in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2003;3:25.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Lumbreras B, Porta M, Márquez S, Pollán M, Parker LA, Hernández-Aguado I. QUADOMICS; An adaptation of the quality assessment (QUADAS) for the evaluation of the methodological quality of studies on the diagnostic accuracy of “-omics”-based technologies. Clin Biochem. 2008;41;1316-25.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Lumbreras B, Porta M, Márquez S, Pollán M, Parker LA, Hernández-Aguado I. Sources of error and its control in studies on the diagnostic accuracy of “-omics” technologies. Proteomics Clin Appl. 2009;3:173-84.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Lumbreras B, Porta M, Márquez S, Pollán M, Parker LA, Hernández-Aguado I. QUADOMICS; An adaptation of the quality assessment (QUADAS) for the evaluation of the methodological quality of studies on the diagnostic accuracy of “-omics”-based technologies. Clin Biochem. 2008;41;1316-25.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Parker LA, Gómez N, Lumbreras B, Porta M, Hernández-Aguado I. Methodological déficits in diagnostic research using “-omics” technologies: Evaluation of QUADOMICS tool and quality of recently published studies. PloS ONE. 2010;5(7): e11419. Doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0011419.
  47. 47.
    Ransohoff DF. How to improve reliability and efficiency of research about molecular markers: roles of phases, guidelines, and study design. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60:2205-19.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Beastall GH. Adding value to laboratory medicine: a professional responsibility. Clin Chem Lab Med. 2013;51:221-7.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Bossuyt PMM, McCaffery K. Additional patient outcomes and pathways in evaluations of testing. Med Dec Making. 2009;29:E30-E38.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Trikalinos TA, Siebert U, Lau J. Decision-analytic modelling to evaluate benefits and harms of medical tests: uses and limitations. Med Dec Making. 2009;29:E22-E29.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Laine C. High-value testing begins with a few simple questions. Ann Intern Med. 2012;156:162-3.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Siwek J, Lin KW. Choosing wisely: more good clinical recommendations to improve health care quality and reduce harm. Am Fam Phys. 2013;88:164-8.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Dyer O. The challenge of doing less. Br Med J. 2013;347:f5904 doi:  10.1136/bmj.f5904.
  54. 54.
    Elshaug AG, McWilliams JM, Landon BE. The value of low value lists. JAMA. 2013;309:775-6.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Qaseem A, Alguire P, Dallas P, Feinberg LE, Fitzgerald FT, Horwitch C, et at. Appropriate use of screeing and diagnostic tests to foster high-value, cost-conscious care. Ann Intern Med. 2012;156:147-9.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Beckman RA, Clark J, Chen C. Integrating predictive biomarkers and classifiers into oncology clinical development programmes. Nature Revs Drug Disc. 2011;10:735-48.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Lumbreras B, Ibern P. La regulación de los biomarcadores y su papel en la medicina estratificada. Gest Clín Sanit. 2010;12:122-5.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Zolg JW, Langen H. How industry is approaching the search for new diagnostic markers and biomarkers. Mol Cell Proteomics. 2004;3:345-54.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Mattes W, Gribble Walker E, Abadie E, Sistare FD, Vonderscher J, Woodcock J, et al. Research at the interface of industry, academia and regulatory science. Nature Biotechnol. 2010;28;432-3.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Editorial. Biomarkers on a roll. Nature Biotechnol. 2010;28:431.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Sistare FD, Dieterle F, Troth S, Holder DJ, Gerhold D, Andrews-Cleavenger D, et al. Towards consensus practices to qualify safety biomarkers for use in early drug development. Nature Biotechnol. 2010;28:446-54.Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Hutson S. To save lives, initiative pushes for standardized diagnostic tools. Nature Med. 2010;16:11.Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Mayor S. Whole genome sequencing fails to predict risk of most common diseases. Br Med J. 2012;344:e2535.Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Howard HC, Borry P. Direct-to-consumer pharmacogenomics testing. Pharmacogenomics. 2011;12:1367-70.Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Kitsios GD, Kent DM. Personalized medicine: not just in our genes. Br Med J. 2012;344:e2161.Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Hudson KL. Genomics, health care, and society. N Engl J Med. 2011;365:1033-41.Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Towse A, Ossa D, Veenstra D, Carlson J, Garrison L. Understanding the economic value of melecular diagnostic tests: Case studies and lessons learned. J Pers Med. 2013;3:288-305.Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Towse A, Garrison L. Economic incentives for evidence generation: Promoting an efficient path to personalized medicine. Value Health. 2013;16:539-43.Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Begley CG, Ellis LM. Drug development: raise standards for preclinical cancer research. Nature. 2012;483:531-3.Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    O´Donnell CJ, Nabel EG. Genomics of cardiovascular disease. N Engl J Med. 2011;365:2098-109.Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Porta M, Hernández-Aguado I, Lumbreras B, Crous-Bou M. “Omics” research, monetization of intelectual property and fragmentation of knowledge: can clinical epidemiology strengthen integrative research? J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60:1220-5.Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Institute of Medicine. Refining processes for the co-development of genome-based therapeutics and companion diagnostic tests. Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2014.Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Garau M, Towse A, Garrison L, Housman L, Ossa D. Can and should value based pricing be applied to molecular diagnostics? London: Office of Health Economics; 2012.Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Fang C, Otero HJ, Greenberg D, Neumann PJ. Cost-utility analyses of diagnostic laboratory tests: A systematic review. Value Health. 2011;14:1010-18.Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    McKneally MF, Daar AS. Introducing new technologies: Protecting subjects of surgical innovation and research. World J Surg. 2003;27:930-5.Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Biffl WL, Spain DA, Reistma AM, Minster RM, Upperman J, Wilson M, et al. Responsible development and application of surgical innovations: a position statement of the Society of University Surgeons. J Am Coll Surg. 2008;206:1204-9.Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Chang DC, Matsen SL, Simpkins CE. Why should surgeons care about clinical research methodology? J Am Coll Surg. 2006;203:827-30.Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Roskin DJ, Longaker MT, Gertner M, Krummel TM. Innovation in surgery. A historical perspective. Ann Surg. 2006;244:686-92.Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Meakins JL. Surgical research: act 3, answers. Lancet. 2009;374:1039-40.Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    Ellis H. The Cambridge Illustrated history of surgery. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2009.Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    McCulloch P, Altman DG, Campbell WB, Flum DR, Glasziou P, Marchall JC, et al. No surgical innovation without evaluation: the IDEAL recommendations. Lancet. 2009;374:1105-12.Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    Ergina PL, Cook JA, Blazeby JM, Boutron I, Vlacien PA, Reeves BC, et al. Challenges in evaluating surgical innovation. Lancet. 2009;374:1097-104.Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    Wahr JA, Prager RL, Abernathy JH, Martinez EA, Salas E, Seifert PC, et al. Patient safety in the cardiac operating room: Human factors and teamwork. A scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2013;128 doi: 10.1161/CIR.0b03e3182a383fa.
  84. 84.
    Sitges-Serra A. Technology or technolatry: where are surgeons going? Cir Esp. 2012;90:156-61.Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    Wente MN, Seiler CM, Uhl W, Buchler MW. Perspectives of evidence-based surgery. Dig Surg. 2003;20:263-9.Google Scholar
  86. 86.
    Solomon MJ, LcLeod RS. Clinical studies in surgical journals—have we improved? Dis Colon Rectum. 1993;36:43-8.Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    Balasubramanian SP, Wiener M, Alshameeri Z, Tiruvoipati R, Elbourne D, Reed MW. Standards of reporting of randomized controlled trials in general surgery. Can do we better? Ann Surg. 2006;244:663-7.Google Scholar
  88. 88.
    Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg. 2004;240:205-13.Google Scholar
  89. 89.
    Clavien PA, Barkun J, De Oliveira ML, Vauthey JN, Dindo D, Schulick RD, et al. The Clavien-Dindo classification of surgical complications. Five-year experience. Ann Surg. 2009;250:187-96.Google Scholar
  90. 90.
    Lilford RJ, Braunholtz DA, Greenhalgh R, Edwards SJL. Trials and fast changing technologies: the case for tracker trials. Br Med J. 2000;320:43-6.Google Scholar
  91. 91.
    Buxton MJ. Problems in the economic appraisal of new health technology: the evaluation of heart transplants in the UK. In: Drummond MF, ed. Economic appraisal of health technology in the European Community. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1987.Google Scholar
  92. 92.
    Cornu C, Kassai B, Fisch R, Chiron C, Alberti C, Guerrini R, et al. Experimental designs for small randomized clinical trials: an algorithm for choice. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2013;8:48. Available at: http://www.ojrd.com/content/8/1/48.
  93. 93.
    Shikata S, Nakayama T, Noguchi Y, Taji Y, Yamagishi H. Comparison of effects in randomized controlled trials with observational studies in digestive surgery. Ann Surg. 2006;244:668-76.Google Scholar
  94. 94.
    Ioannidis P, Haidich AB, Pappa M, Pantazis N, Kokori SI, Tektonidou MG, et al. Comparison of evidence of treatment effects in randomized and nonrandomized studies. JAMA. 2001;286:1887-92.Google Scholar
  95. 95.
    Russell I. Evaluating new surgical procedures. Br Med J. 1995;311:1243.Google Scholar
  96. 96.
    Strasberg SM, Ludbrook PA. Who oversees innovative practice: Is there a structure that meets the monitoring needs of new techniques? J Am Coll Surg. 2003;196:938-48.Google Scholar
  97. 97.
    US Department of Health and Human Services. The Belmont Report. Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. Washington, DC: DHHS; 1979. Available at: http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/belmont.html.
  98. 98.
    Maddern G, Boult M, Ahern E, Babidge W. ASERNIP-S: International trend setting. ANZ J Surg. 2008;78:853-8.Google Scholar
  99. 99.
    National Institute for Health and Clinical Excelence. Interventional procedures programme. Methods guide. London: NICE; 2007.Google Scholar
  100. 100.
    Birkmeyer JD, Reames BN, McCulloch P, Carr AJ, Campbell WB, Wennberg JE. Understanding of regional variation in the use of surgery. Lancet. 2013;382:1121-9.Google Scholar
  101. 101.
    McCulloch P, Nagendran M, Campbell WB, Price A, Jani A, Birkmeyer JD, et al. Strategies to reduce variation in the use of surgery. Lancet. 2013;382:1130-9.Google Scholar
  102. 102.
    Birkmeyer JD. Progress and challenges in improving surgical outcomes. Br J Surg. 2012;99:1467-9.Google Scholar
  103. 103.
    Birkmeyer JD, Sharp SM, Finlayson SRG, Fisher ES, Wennberg JE. Variation profile of common surgical procedures. Surgery. 1998;124:917-23.Google Scholar
  104. 104.
    Wright JG, Hawker GA, Bombardier C, Croxford R, Dittus RS, Freund DA, et al. Physician enthusiasm as an explanation for area variation in the utilization of knee replacement surgery. Med Care. 1999;37:946-56.Google Scholar
  105. 105.
    Editorial. Variation in surgery and surgical research. Lancet. 2013;382:1071.Google Scholar
  106. 106.
    Claxton K, Longo R, Longworth L, McCabe C, Wailoo A. The value of innovation. York: Centre for Health Economics, University of York, Leeds University, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield; 2009.Google Scholar
  107. 107.
    Paris V, Belloni A. Value in Pharmaceutical pricing, OECD Health Working Papers, No. 63. Paris: OECD Publishing; 2013.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Clinical and Health Services Evaluation, Health ServicePalma de MallorcaSpain
  2. 2.Center on Health and EconomicsUniversity Pompeu FabraBarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations