The purpose of this article is to investigate the common facilitators and barriers associated with the implementation of hospital-based health technology assessment (HB-HTA) across diverse hospital settings in seven countries. Through a two-round Delphi study, insights were gathered from a panel of 15 HTA specialists from France, Hungary, Italy, Kazakhstan, Poland, Switzerland, and Ukraine. Experts initially conducted a comprehensive review of the HB-HTA implementation in their respective countries, identifying the barriers and facilitators through descriptive analysis. Subsequently, panel experts ranked these identified barriers and facilitators on a seven-point Likert scale. A median agreement score ≥ 6 and interquartile range (IQR) ≤ 1 was accepted as reaching a consensus. Out of the 12 statements categorized as external and internal barriers and facilitators, the expert panel reached consensus on six statements (two barriers and four facilitators). The external barrier, which achieved consensus, was the lack of the formal recognition of the role of HB-HTA in national or regional legislations. The internal barrier reaching consensus was the limited availability of human resources dedicated to HB-HTA. This qualitative study indicates that HB-HTA still has progress to make before being formally accepted and integrated across most countries, although by building on the facilitating factors we identified there may be an opportunity for the implementation of internationally developed strategies to strengthen HB-HTA practices.

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to describe the development and activities of the Hospital-Based Health Technology Assessment (HB-HTA) Unit in the Hospital of the President's Affairs Administration, one of the first examples of the implementation of HB-HTA into the practice of Kazakhstani hospitals.MethodsDetails of the development of the Unit were obtained from the hospital's administrative records. The Unit's own records were used to describe the reports prepared and the clinical areas that were covered. Responses to recommendations in the Unit's reports were obtained from hospital administration and individual departments. Estimates of savings and payback periods were based on data from the hospital information system, and data submitted by manufacturers and distributors of medical equipment.ResultsFifty-one rapid- and mini-HTA reports were prepared by the Unit from 2015 to 2017. Seventeen health technologies (33 percent) were not recommended for implementation in hospital practice. Refusal to implement sixteen of these technologies saved approximately 1,053,500 USD. Of the thirty-four recommended health technologies, twenty-four were implemented to treat or diagnose 1,376 patients, and eight others were included in plans for 2018–20. Of the twenty-four implemented health technologies, twelve did not require additional investments. The payback period of investments for the other twelve implemented technologies is not more than 3 years for six, less than 5 years for four, and more than 10 years for two technologies.ConclusionsEstablishment of the HB-HTA Unit in the hospital created the basis for making informed managerial decisions; identifying key directions for strategic development; and improving hospital management.

Introduction: One of the main tools for Hospital-Based Health Technology Assessment (HB HTA) is the preparation of a mini-health technology assessment (HTA) report. Despite the high value of the results of mini-HTA reports for hospital decision-makers, the classical mini-HTA report does not allow a direct comparison of several health technologies among themselves.Methods: Based on the analysis of international experience of using the principles of multiple-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) in the field of HB HTA, we created and approved our own managerial decision-making model which includes five standardized multiple criteria. The value (weight) of each criterion was defined as the arithmetic mean obtained as a result of interviewing hospital decision-makers and an HTA expert group.Results: Five standardized multiple criteria were included in the structure of our mini-HTA report. These criteria presented the main results of assessment of the viability of implementing new health technologies (HTs) in hospital practice and contain the following: i) Novelty/innovation; ii) Comparative clinical effectiveness and safety; iii) Relevance (demand); iv) Economic effectiveness; and, v) Payback period. We conducted the modeling of various options of HTA results by using multiple criteria, which allowed us to determine the threshold values of the evaluated HTs corresponding to their priority for implementation: i) High priority - HTs are recommended for implementation; ii) Medium priority - HTs can be recommended only if there are sufficient financial resources in hospital; and, iii) Low priority - HTs may be recommended only if there are strong reasons for their need.Conclusions: Integration of the principles of MCDA in the structure of mini-HTA reports gives the opportunity to i) make comparative assessments of implementing new health technologies based on standardized criteria; ii) determine the priority for implementation of newly evaluated health technologies; iii) avoid the influence of subjective factors on the managerial decision-making in hospitals.

Introduction: The experience of implementing a hospital-based health technology assessment (HB-HTA) system in Kazakhstan is currently represented by only one organization, an independent HB-HTA unit established in 2015 in the Medical Center Hospital of the President's Affairs Administration (the Hospital). Despite the demonstrated positive experience of the Hospital, the widespread implementation of the HB-HTA system in Kazakhstan has experienced some barriers that must be considered before further development can occur.Methods: To determine the barriers to developing and implementing HB-HTA in Kazakhstani hospitals, data from the Hospital's experience were obtained through a survey of Kazakhstan hospitals, conducted on behalf of the Ministry of Health Care. An official response was received from 29 hospitals. During the survey and discussions with hospital staff using the “brainstorming” method, several barriers to the development of HB-HTA in Kazakhstan were identified.Results: Barriers at the system level included the lack of monitoring of the HB-HTA system at the national and regional levels and a lack of methodological support. Organizational barriers included a critically small number of HTA experts and the need for additional logistical support and funding from hospitals. The subjective factors we attributed to the rejection of the HB-HTA system by hospital management were the underestimation of lost profits and that HTA is a tool for promoting a transparent and open system for making managerial decisions.Conclusions: Despite some barriers, the development of HB-HTA in Kazakhstan is a promising area. The heads of key hospitals in Kazakhstan demonstrated a readiness and understanding of the need to use the principles of health technology assessment and clinical and economic analysis to promote the active transfer and implementation of innovative medical technologies.

Introduction: Positron emission tomography combined with computed tomography (PET/CT) using 18F-sodium fluoride (18F-NaF) is used for functional imaging in diseases to detect abnormally altered osteogenic activity, such as benign and malignant bone diseases and inflammatory or traumatic changes in skeletal bones.Methods: A systematic search of literature using keywords in the MEDLINE database was conducted to identify literature on the clinical and cost effectiveness of using PET/CT with 18F-NaF-based radiopharmaceuticals in the diagnosis of bone and cartilage cancer. The search retrieved 323 publications. The analysis included 11 publications that met the selection criteria, including one meta-analysis and ten literature reviews.Results: The pooled sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 18F-NaF-based PET/CT for the detection of bone metastases were 0.98 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.95, 0.99), 0.90 (95% CI: 0.86, 0.93), 123.2, and 0.97, respectively. 18F-NaF-based PET/CT was highly effective in detecting bone metastases during staging and restaging of patients with high-risk prostate cancer. The effectiveness of 18F-NaF-based PET/CT was superior to bone scintigraphy with technetium-99m and single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) and was comparable to diffusion-weighted imaging.Conclusions: PET/CT with 18F-NaF is a more accurate method of localizing and characterizing malignant bone lesions than SPECT. This method has improved clinical accuracy and provides greater convenience for patients and referring physicians. PET/CT with 18F-NaF in malignant neoplasms is a more specific, sensitive study than 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose PET/CT. These results were submitted to the Ministry of Health for a decision on the inclusion of 18F-NaF-based PET/CT in the state reimbursement system.

IntroductionWorldwide, more than 50 million people suffer from epilepsy, and there are 16–51 new cases per 100,000 population each year. Up to 30 percent of patients with epilepsy are pharmacoresistant, who are candidates for surgical treatment. Invasive electroencephalography (iEEG) is a mandatory method in the arsenal of epileptic centers, and is gradually becoming the gold standard for invasive determination of boundaries between the affected and functional zones of the cortex and subcortical brain. Treatment costs correlate with the severity of the disease, with patients having uncontrolled seizures incurring eight times the costs compared to those with controlled epilepsy.MethodsTo assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the iEEG in the pre-surgical diagnosis of pharmacoresistant epilepsy, a systematic search of literature by keywords in the MEDLINE database was conducted. The search resulted in sixty-six articles. The analysis included twenty studies that met the search criteria.ResultsMost studies including meta-analysis show very low rates of complications of iEEG. Literature data demonstrate cost-effectiveness of the method in patients with pharmacoresistant epilepsy in comparison with continued antiepileptic drug therapy. As an integrated method, rather than a simple method, it takes maximum account of clinical, neurophysiological and anatomical-functional data to achieve accurate localization of the epileptogenic zone. Currently, iEEG is a clinically effective method to improve the safety and specificity of resective surgery.ConclusionsWith the use of iEEG, mortality and disability of patients with pharmacoresistant epilepsy will be significantly reduced. It has also been proven that epilepsy surgery leads to significant financial savings in the treatment of pharmacoresistant epilepsy. The results of the clinical and economic evaluation (mini-HTA report) have been submitted to the Ministry of Healthcare for decision-making on including iEEG in government reimbursement system.