Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T17:27:51.428Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

EARLY EVALUATION OF NEW HEALTH TECHNOLOGIES: THE CASE FOR PREMARKET STUDIES THAT HARMONIZE REGULATORY AND COVERAGE PERSPECTIVES

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 November 2015

Leslie Levin
Leslie Levin*
Affiliation:
MaRS EXCITE and University of Toronto llevin@marsdd.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

With an increasing awareness that active engagement between policy decision makers, HTA agencies, regulators and payers with industry in the premarket space is needed, a disruptive comprehensive approach is described which moves the evidentiary process exclusively into this space. Single harmonized studies pre-market to address regulatory and coverage needs and expectations are more likely to be efficient and less costly and position evidence to drive rather than test innovation. An example of such a process through the MaRS EXCITE program in Ontario, Canada, now undergoing proof of concept, is briefly discussed. Other examples of dialogue between decision makers and industry pre-market are provided though these are less robust than a comprehensive evidentiary approach.

Keywords

Premarket evaluationHealth technology
Type
Theme Submissions
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 31 , Issue 4 , 2015 , pp. 207 - 209
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. Banta, D, Jonsson, E. History of HTA: Introduction. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25 (Suppl 1):1–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2. Sorenson, M, Drummond, M, Kanavos, P. Ensuring value for money in health care: The role of health technology assessment in the European Union. European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies. 2008. http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/98291/E91271.pdf.Google Scholar
3. Ferrario, A, Kanavos, P. Managed entry agreements for pharmaceuticals: The European experience. Report by the London School of Economics and Political Science. April, 2013. http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/healthcare/files/docs/mea_report_en.pdf (accessed May 17, 2015).Google Scholar
4. FDA news release: FDA, CMS launch pilot program for voluntary parallel review of innovative 7 October, 2011. Devices. http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm274833.htm (accessed May 19, 2015).Google Scholar
5. FDA-CMS Parallel Review 19 June 2014. http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/HowtoMarketYourDevice/PremarketSubmissions/ucm255678.htm (accessed May 19, 2015).Google Scholar
6. Levin, L, Goeree, R, Sikich, N, et al. Establishing a comprehensive continuum from an evidentiary base to policy development for health technologies - The Ontario experience. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2007;23:299–309.Google Scholar
7. Levin, L, Goeree, R, Levine, M, et al. Coverage with evidence development: The Ontario experience. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2011;27:159–168.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8. Tu, JV, Bowen, J, Chiu, M, et al. Effectiveness and safety of drug-eluting stents in Ontario. N Engl J Med. 2007. 357:1393–140.Google Scholar
9. Evans, W, Laupacis, A, Levine, M, Gulenchyn, K, Levin, L. Introducing PET technology in Ontario. An approach to defining the clinical utility of a new diagnostic technology. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:5607–5613.Google Scholar
10. Bowen, JM, Chow, BJW, Freeman, MR, et al. Ontario Multi-detector Computed Tomographic Coronary Angiography Study (OMCAS): An evaluation of diagnostic accuracy 2010; Programs for Assessment of Technology in Health, St. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton/McMaster University. http://www.path-hta.ca/Libraries/Reports/OMCAS_clinical_report_5_Nov_2010.sflb.ashx (accessed May 19, 2015).Google Scholar
11. Hofer, MP, Jakobsson, C, Zafiropoulos, N, et al. Regulatory watch: Impact of scientific advice from the European Medicines Agency. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2015;14:302–303.Google Scholar