Unhealthy diet is a risk factor for adverse health outcomes. Reformulation of processed foods has the potential to improve population diet, but evidence of its impact is limited. The purpose of this review was to explore the impact of reformulation on nutrient intakes, health outcomes and quality of life; and to evaluate the quality of modelling studies on reformulation interventions. A systematic review of peer-reviewed articles published between January 2000 and December 2017 was performed using MEDLINE, ScienceDirect, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane, and the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination of the University of York. Additional studies were identified through informal searches on Google and specialized websites. Only simulation studies modelling the impact of food reformulation on nutrient intakes and health outcomes were included. Included articles were independently extracted by 2 reviewers using a standardized, pre-piloted data form, including a self-developed tool to assess study quality. A total of 33 studies met the selected inclusion criteria, with 20, 5 and 3 studies addressing sodium, sugar and fats reformulation respectively, and 5 studies addressing multiple nutrients. Evidence on the positive effects of reformulation on consumption and health was stronger for sodium interventions, less conclusive for sugar and fats. Study features were highly heterogeneous including differences in methods, the type of policy implemented, the extent of the reformulation, and the spectrum of targeted foods and nutrients. Nonetheless, partial between-study comparisons show a consistent relationship between percentages reformulated and reductions in individual consumption. Positive results are also shown for health outcomes and quality of life measures, although comparisons across studies are limited by the heterogeneity in model features and reporting. Study quality was often compromised by short time-horizons, disregard of uncertainty and time dependencies, and lack of model validation. Reformulation models highlight relevant improvements in diets and population health. While models are valuable tools to evaluate reformulation interventions, comparisons are limited by non-homogeneous designs and assumptions. The use of validated models and extensive scenario analyses would improve models’ credibility, providing useful insights for policy-makers. A research protocol was registered within the PROSPERO database (ID number CRD42017057341).

This study systematically reviews costing studies of seasonal influenza-like illness (ILI) in high-income countries. Existing reviews on the economic impact of ILI do not report information on drug consumption and its costs, nor do they provide data on the overall cost per episode. The PRISMA-P checklist was used to design the research protocol. Studies included were cost of illness analysis (COI) and modeling studies that estimated the cost of ILI episodes. Records were searched from January 2000 to December 2016 in electronic bibliographic databases including Medline, Embase, Science Direct, the Cochrane Library, the Centre for Reviews and Disseminations of the University of York, and Google scholar. References from the included studies were hand-searched for completion. Abstract screening, full-text analysis and data extraction were performed by two reviewers independently and discrepancies were resolved by discussion with a third reviewer. A standardized, pre-piloted form was used for data extraction. All costs were converted to 2015 US$ Purchasing Power Parities. The literature search identified 5,104 records. After abstract and title screening, 76 studies were analyzed full-text and 27 studies were finally included in the review. Full estimates of the cost per episode range from US$19 in Korea to US$323 in Germany. Particularly, the cost per episode of laboratory confirmed influenza cases was estimated between US$64 and US$73. Inpatient and outpatient services account for the majority of the costs. Differences in the estimates may reflect country-specific characteristics, as well as other study-specific features including study design, identification strategy of ILI cases, study populations and types of costs included in the analysis. Children usually register higher costs, whereas evidence for the elderly is less conclusive. Patients risk-profile, co-morbidities and complications are the other important cost-drivers. None of the papers considered appropriateness in resource use (e.g. abuse of antibiotics). Despite cost of illness studies have ultimately a descriptive role, evidence on (in)appropriateness is useful for policy-makers.

In the drive towards faster patient access to treatments, health technology assessment (HTA) agencies are increasingly faced with reliance on evidence from surrogate endpoints, leading to increased decision uncertainty. This study undertook an updated survey of methodological guidance for using surrogate endpoints across international HTA agencies. We reviewed HTA and economic evaluation methods guidance from European, Australian and Canadian HTA agencies. We considered how guidelines addressed the methods for handling surrogate endpoints, including (1) level of evidence, (2) methods of validation, and (3) thresholds of acceptability. Across the 73 HTA agencies surveyed, 29 (40%) had methodological guidelines that made specific reference to consideration of surrogate outcomes. Of the 45 methods documents analysed, the majority [27 (60%)] were non-technology specific, 15 (33%) focused on pharmaceuticals and three (7%) on medical devices. The principles of the European network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA) guidelines published in 2015 on the handling of surrogate endpoints appear to have been adopted by many European HTA agencies, i.e. preference for final patient-relevant outcomes and reliance on surrogate endpoints with biological plausibility and epidemiological evidence of the association between the surrogate and final endpoint. Only a small number of HTA agencies (UK National Institute for Care and Excellence; the German Institute for Medical Documentation and Information and Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care; the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee; and the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health) have developed more detailed prescriptive criteria for the acceptance of surrogate endpoints, e.g. meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials showing strong association between the treatment effect on the surrogate and final outcomes. As the decision uncertainty associated with reliance on surrogate endpoints carries a risk to patients and society, there is a need for HTA agencies to develop more detailed methodological guidance for consistent selection and evaluation of health technologies that lack definitive final patient-relevant outcome evidence at the time of the assessment.

Objectives: Medical devices are potentially good candidates for coverage with evidence development (CED) schemes, as clinical data at market entry are often sparse and (cost-)effectiveness depends on real-world use. The objective of this research was to explore the diffusion of CED schemes for devices in Europe, and the factors that favour or hamper their utilization. Methods: We conducted structured interviews with 25 decision-makers from 22 European countries to explore the characteristics of existing CED programmes for devices, and how decision makers perceived 13 pre-identified challenges associated with initiating and operating CED schemes for devices. We also collected data on individual schemes that were either initiated or still ongoing in the last 5 years. Results: We identified seven countries with CED programmes for devices and 78 ongoing schemes. The characteristics of CED programmes varied across countries, including eligibility criteria, roles and responsibilities of stakeholders, funding arrangements, and type of decisions being contemplated at the outset of each scheme. We observed a high variability in how decision makers perceived CED-related challenges possibly reflecting country-specific arrangements and different experiences with CED. One general finding across all countries was that relatively little attention was paid to the evaluation of schemes, both during and at their completion. Conclusions: CED programmes for devices with different characteristics exist in Europe. Decision-makers’ perceptions differ on the challenges associated with these schemes. More exchange of knowledge and experience will help decision makers anticipate the likely challenges in CED schemes for devices, and to learn from good practices existing elsewhere.

Health economists have written extensively on the design and implementation of coverage with evidence development (CED) schemes and have proposed theoretical frameworks based on cost‐effectiveness modeling and value of information analysis. CED may aid decision‐makers when there is uncertainty about the (cost‐)effectiveness of a new health technology at the time of reimbursement. Medical devices are potential candidates for CED schemes, as regulatory regimes do not usually require the same level of efficacy and safety data normally needed for pharmaceuticals. The purpose of this research is to assess whether the actual practice of CED for medical devices in Europe meets the theoretical principles proposed by health economists and whether theory and practice can be more closely aligned. Based on decision‐makers' perceptions of the challenges associated with CED schemes, plus examples from the schemes themselves, we discuss a series of proposals for assessing the desirability of schemes, their design, implementation, and evaluation. These proposals, while reflecting the practical challenges with developing CED programs, embody many of the principles suggested by economists and should support decision‐makers in dealing with uncertainty about the real‐world performance of devices.

Specific guidance and examples for health technology assessment (HTA) of medical devices are scarce in medical device development. A more intense dialogue of competent authorities, HTA agencies, and manufactures may improve evidence base on clinical and cost-effectiveness. Especially as the new Medical Device Regulation requires more clinical evidence. We explore the perceptions of manufacturers, competent authorities, and HTA agencies towards such dialogues and investigate how they should be designed to accelerate the translational process from development to patient access using semi-structured interviews. We synthesized the evidence from manufacturers, competent authorities, and HTA agencies from 14 different jurisdictions across Europe. Eleven HTA agencies, four competent authorities, and eight manufacturers of high-risk devices expressed perceptions on the current situation and the expected development of three types of early dialogues. The MDR has to be taken into account when designing the early dialogue processes. Transferring insights from medicinal product regulation is limited as the regulatory pathways differ substantially. Early dialogues promise to accelerate the translational process and to provide faster access to innovative medical devices. However, health policy-makers should promote and fully establish regulatory and HTA early dialogues before introducing parallel early dialogues of regulatory, HTA agencies, and manufacturers. For initiating change, the legislator must create the legal basis and set the appropriate incentives for manufacturers.